Renaming of Ion3 in Debian

Message

DeanLinkous · #46 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-05-09 12:31

So you want something dumbed down for a user? I consider it a users problem if they want the latest version of something.

I think a package that has gone thru testing/usage and freeze have proven themselves and are the exact type of packages I expect to see in the stable release.

If everything was is so stupid/wrong/kludge with GNU+Linux - why did you ever get involved?

Pobega · #47 Post by **Pobega** » 2007-05-09 12:45

tuomov wrote:
Pobega wrote: Wait - Packages in the Debian repositories are done in the kernel? I originally thought you meant that the package maintainers upload packages like ion-2.3.59, ion-2.3.62 for the package names.
Code: Select all
$ apt-cache search kernel-image
kernel-image-2.6.14 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.6.14.
kernel-image-2.6.7 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.6.7.
kernel-image-2.6.6 - Linux kernel binary image for version 2.6.6.
... and the list goes on ...

Oh, now I see. I misinterpereted what you meant before!

Well, this is because of apt's scheme; When apt upgrades a package it removes the original first. If they used normal versions of kernel images, then it would delete your current kernel before installing the new one. At least this is how I understand it. The kernel is the only exception to this rule, and I think a window manager is the last thing I'd expect to see a packaging scheme like this from.

Edit: Contact the package maintainer, and try to get a Debian developer involved in your discussion. Hopefully we can get some type of resolution out of this.

tuomov · #48 Post by **tuomov** » 2007-05-09 13:01

DeanLinkous wrote:So you want something dumbed down for a user? I consider it a users problem if they want the latest version of something.

It's the developer's problem too, when the user is dumb, or lazy. And it's not really dumbing down, it's also providing a decent service. Apt-get install and similar tools are so convenient, that I'm too lazy to check random programs' pages whether the version provided in Debian is something that I should bother with at all. So apt-get could tell me about it.

I think a package that has gone thru testing/usage and freeze have proven themselves and are the exact type of packages I expect to see in the stable release.

Development snapshots of Ion have ended up in the "stable" Debian, and I've had users seeking for support for them. And as for software marked stable by the author -- any updates to them are important bug fixes that distributions should provide.

If everything was is so stupid/wrong/kludge with GNU+Linux - why did you ever get involved?

It didn't suck so much ten years ago. Linux had promise. It no longer has.

llivv · #49 Post by **llivv** » 2007-05-09 19:26

benh · #50 Post by **benh** » 2007-05-13 03:03

Pobega wrote:Contact the package maintainer, and try to get a Debian developer involved in your discussion. Hopefully we can get some type of resolution out of this.

I started this thread because I am the maintainer!

thamarok · #51 Post by **thamarok** » 2007-05-13 07:37

benh wrote:
Pobega wrote:Contact the package maintainer, and try to get a Debian developer involved in your discussion. Hopefully we can get some type of resolution out of this.
I started this thread because I am the maintainer!

Have you got any idea for the new rename?

Pobega · #52 Post by **Pobega** » 2007-05-13 11:38

benh wrote:
Pobega wrote:Contact the package maintainer, and try to get a Debian developer involved in your discussion. Hopefully we can get some type of resolution out of this.
I started this thread because I am the maintainer!

Woops, sorry about that. I am not on Debian at the moment (Barely had time to use my laptop since I got it back) so I didn't have the time to research that

DeanLinkous · #53 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-05-13 11:48

heeheehee that was funny

laughing with - not at

ColdWind · #54 Post by **ColdWind** » 2007-05-14 21:34

It's not that I don't like the "Ice-blah" thing, but "Iceparticle" looks awful.

benh · #55 Post by **benh** » 2007-05-17 01:47

Thanks to everyone who suggested names.

However, I've discussed things with Tuomo and we've agreed on changes to the package so that it does not need to be renamed.

AgenT · #56 Post by **AgenT** » 2007-05-17 02:20

benh wrote:Thanks to everyone who suggested names.

However, I've discussed things with Tuomo and we've agreed on changes to the package so that it does not need to be renamed.

By far the best solution. Good job to both of you benh and tuomov for being able to come to an agreement in a professional manner.

DeanLinkous · #57 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-05-17 02:30

dammit! I say rename for the heck of it. We could get some ugly press out of yet-another-debian-renamed-package

llivv · #58 Post by **llivv** » 2007-05-17 05:28

Pobega · #59 Post by **Pobega** » 2007-05-17 10:57

I'm actually pretty happy that tuomov and you could come to a mature solution, even though I don't personally use Ion. Good job the both of you.

tuomov · #60 Post by **tuomov** » 2007-05-17 11:50

Pobega wrote:I'm actually pretty happy that tuomov and you could come to a mature solution, even though I don't personally use Ion. Good job the both of you.

It's a dirty brute-force hack that I wouldn't particularly like as a user... the package checks the site on install for newer versions. Better solutions would demand only a bit more architecture, that isn't there, but wouldn't be difficult to add if people could be arsed. But ugly hacks is the FOSS way of things.

(The architecture would be e.g. a small database of triples (package, upstream-version, checked-when) downloaded by apt* update. The tool could even make the check on install instead of the package, for packages that ask to complain when upstream-version does not match, or checked-when is too old (or this information is not available). Users could also use this service to check whether other packages they are about to install are too old to bother with.)

DeanLinkous · #61 Post by **DeanLinkous** » 2007-05-17 15:11

tuomov wrote: (The architecture would be e.g. a small database of triples (package, upstream-version, checked-when) downloaded by apt* update. The tool could even make the check on install instead of the package, for packages that ask to complain when upstream-version does not match, or checked-when is too old (or this information is not available). Users could also use this service to check whether other packages they are about to install are too old to bother with.)

Sounds interesting... so are you volunteering to work on this project?

Pobega · #62 Post by **Pobega** » 2007-05-17 17:00

Is the Ion3 package staying in the main repository, or is it moving to contrib/non-free?

benh · #63 Post by **benh** » 2007-05-17 22:26

Pobega wrote:Is the Ion3 package staying in the main repository, or is it moving to contrib/non-free?

It's moving to non-free.

trey · #64 Post by **trey** » 2007-05-18 17:43

benh wrote:
Pobega wrote:Is the Ion3 package staying in the main repository, or is it moving to contrib/non-free?
It's moving to non-free.

Thank you!

Lux · #65 Post by **Lux** » 2007-05-18 22:55

I was going to suggest "oblivion" as a potential new name but Ion is a very nice window manager and I'm glad that Debian keeps it available via apt-get. Non-free seems like the right place for it.

Debian User Forums

Renaming of Ion3 in Debian

What name should Debian use?