packaging org-mode & worg

packaging org-mode & worg

[Giovanni Ridolfi]

[I opened a new thread, changed the subject, and 
cc:ed Carsten and Mark that are having a
similar thread: "contributing Debian build scripts"]

Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@upsilon.cc> writes:
> But the fact that it is in that .zip file does not imply that it will
> end up in the same monolithic package that users install: 
> distribution editors 
> routinely split up monolithic "upstream" packages in several
> different "downstream" packages.

Stefano, sorry to bother you again, 
but now I'm pretty sure I've *not* understood the *key point* of 
your request  (that you have briefly mentioned before, but that I
skipped, because it was unclear to me).

Some question come to my mind (see below for a general question):

Could you, please, elaborate who are the distribution editors?  

+ Carsten with file org-mode.zip? 
+ FSF emacs+[stable]-orgmode? 

and what do mean, when you say "upstream"/"downstream" packages?

Do you suggest that the org-mode-code + worg-site is packaged 
and built as:

        org-mode-worg-site             (upstream) for developers
            /                              then splitted in
           /        
   org-mode+info.zip         (downstream) that user will download-install?


 More generally.

I mean, before getting involved in Org's adventure Carsten
wrote some 'little' .el files, but I think he might be lacking of a
'vision' as packager, if I look at org-mode from a "DD point of view".

Org-mode grew from requests of users and the "worg site" is the
*current*, as you wrote, answer to the need of documentation.

But, being DD, you have a really wide experience in packages and 
packaging, that in org-mode community, I think, almost nobody else has. 

So could you, please, suggest how will you split/build/create/organize...
the org-mode-worg-site?

Thank you for your time and patience,

Giovanni

Re: packaging org-mode & worg

[Ian Barton]

> Some question come to my mind (see below for a general question):
>
> Could you, please, elaborate who are the distribution editors?
>
> + Carsten with file org-mode.zip?
> + FSF emacs+[stable]-orgmode?
>
> and what do mean, when you say "upstream"/"downstream" packages?
>
Disclaimer I am not Stefano:) It's fairly common for Linux distros to 
split large applications into smaller packages. A good example would be 
MythTV, which Debian split into a number of packages that support 
different features.

This used to be the case for Emacs, but since Emacs 23 most things seem 
to be included in the core version.

To use the Debian analogy the upstream would be Carsten and downstream 
would be whoever created the Debian packages. The packagers commonly 
feed back bug reports/bug fixes to the upstream, plus suggestions on how 
to make the code easier to build packages.

One possible solution to the "Worg Problem" would be to create a ppa 
(Personal Package Archive) on Launchpad. This would create a debian 
package of Worg, which would at least help Debian/Ubuntu users. The 
reason I suggest Launchpad is that it has a number of automated build 
facilities that reduce the work the package maintainer has to do to keep 
the package up to date.

Ian.

Re: packaging org-mode & worg

[Stefano Zacchiroli]

On Wed, Jun 23, 2010 at 01:30:00PM +0200, Giovanni Ridolfi wrote:
> [I opened a new thread, changed the subject, and 
> cc:ed Carsten and Mark that are having a
> similar thread: "contributing Debian build scripts"]

Thanks.

> Stefano, sorry to bother you again, but now I'm pretty sure I've *not*
> understood the *key point* of your request (that you have briefly
> mentioned before, but that I skipped, because it was unclear to me).

I didn't mean to create all this fuss, but I'll take the chance of these
questions of ours to give some guidelines that in general help package
maintainers in distributions.

> Could you, please, elaborate who are the distribution editors?  

Sorry for the convoluted term; with "distribution editors" I meant "the
people which maintain packages in distributions (like Debian, Fedora,
Suse, etc.)". Their job is usually to take what the original software
authors (which we call "upstream") release and ship it as packages for
the distribution users.

In general, distribution people expect to have all the stuff related to
an upstream software to be contained in a single tarball; there are
exceptions, but it is easier that way. What I was asking for was merely
to ship Worg stuff in the org-mode tarball. Once it is there, the
distribution people can decide what to do about that (one of: ship it in
the main package, ship it in a separate -doc package, ignore its
existence all together).

An extra advantage of having the doc together with the software is that
software comes with a license that, in most cases, can be assumed to
apply also to the documentation. In the case of worg indeed, I currently
can't find a LICENSE for the content in the Git repo; that would inhibit
most maintainers from packaging it as content without license is not
redistributable by default. This is probably not what you intended, but
it is a common scenario when stuff is distributed separately: it is
really easy to think about a license for a software, while it is easily
forgotten to do the same for the documentation.

The problem of syntax that you raised in a previous mail is of course a
valid one and not affected by the above discussion. I was naively
considering that there was a (trivial) way to convert Worg into info for
integration within the Emacs help system, but I've since then realized
that that is not necessarily the case.

Hope this explains,
Cheers.

-- 
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -<>- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Dietro un grande uomo c'è ..|  .  |. Et ne m'en veux pas si je te tutoie
sempre uno zaino ...........| ..: |.... Je dis tu à tous ceux que j'aime

Re: Re: packaging org-mode & worg

[Bastien]

I don't think it's a good idea to integrate a Worg snapshot into Org's
distribution: too much maintenance trouble for little convenience.

Org's documentation already refers to Worg in some places: maybe we just
need to have more references like these, and a more thorough description
of what Worg is?

I also like the idea of a debian package for Worg - this cannot hurt and
might advertize the project quite widely.

-- 
 Bastien

Re: Re: packaging org-mode & worg

[Ian Barton]

>
> I also like the idea of a debian package for Worg - this cannot hurt and
> might advertize the project quite widely.
>

I'll create a ppa for Worg on Launchpad and see if I can create a useful 
package.

I think that in addition to just the org files, it would be useful if 
the package contained an html version, an info version and maybe a pdf. 
I am assuming that I can just use org's publish facilities to do this.

Ian.

Re: Re: packaging org-mode & worg

[Bastien]

Hi Ian,

Ian Barton <lists@manor-farm.org> writes:

> I'll create a ppa for Worg on Launchpad and see if I can create a useful
> package.

Thanks a lot for this!

> I think that in addition to just the org files, it would be useful if
> the package contained an html version, an info version and maybe a
> pdf. I am assuming that I can just use org's publish facilities to do
> this.

Let me know if I can help you build this package.

-- 
 Bastien