Re: Packaging (was Re: Socket library?)
- From: Alek Paunov <alex@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Sat, 06 Oct 2012 01:24:15 +0300
On 05.10.2012 14:28, Enrico Tassi wrote:
On Fri, Oct 05, 2012 at 05:32:53AM +0300, Alek Paunov wrote:
On 05.10.2012 00:18, Justin Cormack wrote:
I think the real issue is that there has not been a real release yet and
until then there is little point packaging. Because there are so many
changes even since the last beta it is such a moving target. Once 2.0 is
out it should be packaged up...
I don't see what will change after the release
Luajit is packages for Debian unstable (i.e. it is not part of any
I am aware that thanks to your work LuaJIT is already packaged for the
Debian family. For me this part of the whole "coordinated packaging
effort" as it has been called by Alexander yesterday, is on "rails"
already (actually the most important part, because probably more than
50% of the Linux development boxes and VMs, which probably means around
20-25% share in the whole number, are Ubuntu boxes these days).
I should have been more clear - my whole note was about the Fedora
family part (the 2nd as importance).
stable release). This was the result of a discussion with Mike, that did
not want a beta version of his software to be frozen in the Debian
archive for 2 years.
Good to be known. OTOH, you are aware that Fedora/CentOS (RHEL)
relationship don't match exactly the Debian-Unstable/Debian-Release
relationship nor the Debian-Unstable/Ubuntu one - Fedora is intended to
be nearly bleeding edge, developer and end-user oriented, and is rarely
used for server deployments (*), but in same time, as RHEL *upstream*
with relatively strong criteria about the coherency of the system and
with serious, at least intentions regarding the releases QA for the
so-called "critical path" set of packages.
Many important things in the released Fedora (f17) are nearly bleeding
edge - gcc-4.7.2, kernel-3.5.4, java-1.7-u6, etc., so it seems to me
perfectly normal for Fedora 17/18 to have LuaJIT 2.0-beta10/beta11 included.
Moreover in Fedora we don't have n-year freezes - major versions can be
introduced along with Fedora releases but all other updates are at the
discretion of the maintainer for all active branches/releases (+FESCO
[1] in rare cases). Even RHEL users are able to switch to their
dedicated EPEL-x collections and update to near Fedora level versions
for some packages (which is possible and expected for packages with zero
key dependencies like LuaJIT)
(*) probably, with the notable exception of the virtualization/cloud
deployments - hypervisors, management nodes and virtual desktops, i.e.
various kvm/lxc and spice based solutions (as openstack as instance),
because in these emerging areas stable == latest, in contrast with the
traditional sense of the qualification
When 2.0 will be out, the package will be made available in a stable
distribution too. More to the point, software authors gets irritated by
bugreports on old/beta/unreleased versions of their softwares. And they
are right.
Indeed (for Debian), but I tend to disagree about Fedora - LuaJIT 2.0 is
in late beta stages, used as-is at many sites, delivering new and unique
features, with release expected in several months - it sounds perfectly
reasonable to me to receive more wide testing around the time of the
release - Fedora community and user base serves exactly this role for
the downstream part of the family - field testing and polishing of
cutting edge technologies.
But of course, as Jay said - a "suggestion" from Mike about the right
moment for Fedora packaging and "in-distro" marketing should be of high
importance.
Kind Regards,
Alek
[1] http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Fedora_Engineering_Steering_Committee
P.S. This is second attempt to send this replay to the list; My SMTP
server log contains:
@40000000506f542a10d66acc starting delivery 2702395: msg 491757 to
remote luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
@40000000506f542c288c071c delivery 2702395: success:
206.53.239.180_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_2.0.0_Ok:_queued_as_CBC53EFC76D/
for the first attempt but nothing has appeared in the archive page nor
as e-mail. Same as for another disappeared message yesterday:
@40000000506e2c591d4d1f1c starting delivery 2627566: msg 491522 to
remote luajit@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
@40000000506e2c5d0b0c25dc delivery 2627566: success:
206.53.239.180_accepted_message./Remote_host_said:_250_2.0.0_Ok:_queued_as_634EBEEF9B0/
Other related posts:
