Hello, On Sat, Mar 19, 2005 at 08:55:57AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Mar 18, 2005 at 10:27:21PM +0100, Sylvain LE GALL wrote: > > Hello, > > > > As promise, i can answer a little bit longer on the reason why mldonkey > > is RC for now. > > Thanks. > > > Well, the first point is that mldonkey doesn't have made release for more > > than 4 months now. A new release ( 2.5.28.1 or 2.5.30 ) is available > > since one week. The former version doesn't work very well since many p2p > > network has made incompatible release of their protocol in order to make non > > commercial client unable to communicate ( as usual they don't want > > people not install spyware/adware and use their network ). > > Ok. But what about the not edonkey protocols supported ? >
People mainly use the edonkey protocol with mldonkey. But you are right, protocol like bitorrent has no problem. > > Due to this perpetual evolution of protocol, i am not sure mldonkey is > > well suited for being in a stable release ( i think a mldonkey package > > in sarge will be useless after 4 months of existence ). So i am not > > sure, i want to spend my time answering mail concerning the fact that > > mldonkey doesn't work anymore... > > Maybe this would be a good candidate for the volatile distribution thingy they > have been speaking about. Can you investigate this ? > Well, i just finished to read the requirement of volatile.debian.net. It looks OK to have a mldonkey package in there... > > Last, but not least, mldonkey actual package layout "sucks" ( to quote > > one user that just send me an email ). In fact, i agree on this point, > > since 1 year i have try to conceil policy, usability and easy > > configuration of the package.... The result is a pretty big mess. It is > > not really a question about bad maintenance or bad sponsorship. I really > > don't think so. It is mainly the result of too much layer of compromise > > ( compromis en francais ). > > Let's solve this together, ok, i believe you simply lack the experience to > know how to best deal with this. An install at high priority should just work > and ask the less possible questions. You can do more advanced configurations > at medium or low priority. > > > I have plan concerning the future upload, i need time to apply them : > > - split mldonkey-server to extract the init script and configuration. > > This will allow user to install mldonkey-server and not run it ( > > because half of the user use it only from time to time, not as a > > daemon ). The name of the new package will be mldonkey-server-daemon. The > > former debconf question concerning the fact that mldonkey should start at > > boot, will not be asked anymore ( but a variable will stay in the > > configuration file ). > > Mmm, ... > > I think it is best to ask as a high/medium debconf question if you want to run > it automatically, or manually. > > > - reduce the number of question asked in debconf : i will reduce the set > > of question to 3 or 4 and only for options concerning things that is > > needed to create a base download.ini. It is mandatory, since without > > initial download.ini the things is totally unsecure. I will integrate > > a sane configuration for the file /etc/default/mldonkey. > > I think you should do that for high priority, but ask more stuff for lower > priorities. > > > - ask for the create of a user mldonkey or p2p or debian-mldonkey. > > Just create a mldonkey user and be gone with that. Maybe make the user > configurable in lower priority, and complain loudly if the user creation fails > because the user created it previously or something. > > high priority installs should just work with the minimum of user intervention. > Well, this looks like the actual solution. But what i fear is the complexity of the maintainer script. I don't feel very comfortable with some parts of these scripts ( even though they have been tested on my own computer ). I want to simplify those script to make the package more easy to maintain... If you want, i will propose you a new package ( to you and to other dom ), just to see what you think of it... > > For now, i am finishing a library ( ocaml-gettext ). Since i have nearly > > finish my work on this, i will end it before working again on mldonkey ( > > i think that it should be ok by the end of the WE ). > > Cool. Kind regard Sylvain Le Gall -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
