Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Carsten Schoenert]

Am 27.02.2018 um 00:41 schrieb Nick Østergaard:
> And I still think it is fine to talk about general packaging things
> on the dev list because packagers for multiple platforms are
> available here. Often it is also relevant for some development
> decisions.

I guess this is mostly addressed to me due my previous answer within
this thread.

Nick. I fully agree here with you, no doubt. General and "default"
questions should and need to be discussed in a broader audience like on
this ml for the reasons you describe.

For more in detail questions that are not in the main scope of this list
I'd like to see not more than the needed noise, the traffic on the list
is not that low most of the time and so I can't always follow some
topics every time.

The packaging formats in the different Linux distributions are differing
in details. So some feature that is possible in distro A isn't possible
in distro B. Related to this it's simple impossible to keep the same
package name layout in sync over the Linux distributions at the same
time. Also the strategy of some distributions for life circle and
updates are basically different. The rolling release based distros (like
Arch) are fundamentally different to major version releasing distros and
lower done the requirements on the underlying package manager.

To make it short, I assume it's impossible to let every distro have the
same packages with the same content.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Steven A. Falco]

On 02/26/2018 06:42 PM, Nick Østergaard wrote:
> Please submit your patch as a pull request.

Ok.  I added a pull request on github to pull the master branch of 
https://github.com/stevefalco/fedora-packaging/ into the master branch of 
https://github.com/KiCad/fedora-packaging.

This will replace the v4 library repo with the v5 symbol, footprint, and 3d 
repos.

Please let me know if there are any problems.

Steve


> 2018-02-26 4:48 GMT+01:00 Steven A. Falco  >:
> 
> On 02/25/2018 07:31 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 02/25/2018 07:25 PM, Rene Pöschl wrote:
> >> On 25/02/18 23:29, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> >>> Stephen,
> >>>
> >>> I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library.  This will
> >>> probably be acceptable up to the stable release.  At this point we 
> will
> >>> have to tag each repo.  Are any of our library devs planning on doing
> >>> any major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable
> >>> release?  If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Wayne
> >>>
> >>
> >> I asked a week or so ago if i should tag. Your response was that it is 
> unnecessary. Otherwise i would have tagged the libs back then.
> >> l
> >> As i do not yet plan to ban major changes, i tagged the repos with 
> "v5.0.0-rc1"
> >>
> >
> > Rene,
> >
> > I don't think there is a major issue here but tagging rc1 wont hurt 
> anything.  The main thing I am worried about is the stable release and that 
> the library layout structure and the library names remain constant throughout 
> the stable 5 release series unless the user specifically chooses to install 
> newer libraries.  Between now and the stable release, I do expect some 
> changes to the libraries but we can tag as we go if we need to.
> 
> There are a lot of issues here that I am not necessarily competent to 
> answer, so let me just propose a quick patch to get the copr builds to at 
> least use the v5 libraries instead of the v4 libraries.  That will 
> potentially enable more Fedora users to test with a consistent v5 of kicad, 
> so I see it as a step in the right direction.
> 
> I've attached the patch, and I've tested it in my copr repo here: 
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stevenfalco/kicad/ 
> 
> 
> Basically, this patch replaces the v4 kicad-library repo with the v5 
> kicad-footprints, kicad-packages3D, kicad-templates and kicad-symbols repos.  
> It also sets KICAD_VERSION_EXTRA to the git "commit-count.SHA" so the version 
> is more visible in the help:about dialog.
> 
> I received a pm from a developer off-list, who wants to split the package 
> into separate components, uncoupling the libs from the executables.  That 
> seems like a great idea to me, and lines up with the debian proposal, but 
> clearly that will take more effort to put in place.
> 
> Please let me know if this patch is acceptable, or if you need further 
> changes.
> 
>         Steve
> 
> 
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers 
> 
> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net 
> 
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers 
> 
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers 
> 
> Post to     : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net 
> 
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers 
> 
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp 
> 
> 
> 


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Nick Østergaard]

Please submit your patch as a pull request.

2018-02-26 4:48 GMT+01:00 Steven A. Falco :

> On 02/25/2018 07:31 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> >
> >
> > On 02/25/2018 07:25 PM, Rene Pöschl wrote:
> >> On 25/02/18 23:29, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> >>> Stephen,
> >>>
> >>> I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library.  This will
> >>> probably be acceptable up to the stable release.  At this point we will
> >>> have to tag each repo.  Are any of our library devs planning on doing
> >>> any major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable
> >>> release?  If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1.
> >>>
> >>> Cheers,
> >>>
> >>> Wayne
> >>>
> >>
> >> I asked a week or so ago if i should tag. Your response was that it is
> unnecessary. Otherwise i would have tagged the libs back then.
> >> l
> >> As i do not yet plan to ban major changes, i tagged the repos with
> "v5.0.0-rc1"
> >>
> >
> > Rene,
> >
> > I don't think there is a major issue here but tagging rc1 wont hurt
> anything.  The main thing I am worried about is the stable release and that
> the library layout structure and the library names remain constant
> throughout the stable 5 release series unless the user specifically chooses
> to install newer libraries.  Between now and the stable release, I do
> expect some changes to the libraries but we can tag as we go if we need to.
>
> There are a lot of issues here that I am not necessarily competent to
> answer, so let me just propose a quick patch to get the copr builds to at
> least use the v5 libraries instead of the v4 libraries.  That will
> potentially enable more Fedora users to test with a consistent v5 of kicad,
> so I see it as a step in the right direction.
>
> I've attached the patch, and I've tested it in my copr repo here:
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stevenfalco/kicad/
>
> Basically, this patch replaces the v4 kicad-library repo with the v5
> kicad-footprints, kicad-packages3D, kicad-templates and kicad-symbols
> repos.  It also sets KICAD_VERSION_EXTRA to the git "commit-count.SHA" so
> the version is more visible in the help:about dialog.
>
> I received a pm from a developer off-list, who wants to split the package
> into separate components, uncoupling the libs from the executables.  That
> seems like a great idea to me, and lines up with the debian proposal, but
> clearly that will take more effort to put in place.
>
> Please let me know if this patch is acceptable, or if you need further
> changes.
>
> Steve
>
>
> >
> > Cheers,
> >
> > Wayne
> >
> > ___
> > Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> > Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> > More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Nick Østergaard]

@Wayne, the copr nighlties we provide for fedora is maintained in
https://github.com/KiCad/fedora-packaging

Patches should of course be submitted to this as pull requests. I see
Aimylios submitted some changes a week or two ago, but I and clearly no one
else has reviewed it. I would advise both Aimylios and Steven to engage in
discussion on the github repo specific to packaging. And I still think it
is fine to talk about general packaging things on the dev list because
packagers for multiple platforms are available here. Often it is also
relevant for some development decisions.

2018-02-26 21:14 GMT+01:00 Aimylios :

> Am 26.02.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
>
>>
>> Can someone please help Steve out here?  I don't know where our fedora
>> packages are being maintained so I would appreciate someone confirming
>> this patch.  I don't know that there is much we can do about the
>> upstream situation.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
 Cheers,

 Wayne

 ___
 Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
 Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
 Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
 More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

>>>
>
> Hi,
>
> I'm not involved in Fedora upstream packaging, but like Steve I have spent
> some time to set up a packaging environment for my own, personal nightly
> and release builds, as I am not very happy with the current state of the
> official nightly copr builds.
> I based my work on what is published in the fedora-packaging repository on
> GitHub. Unfortunately the SPEC file is in a poor shape and I ended up
> rewriting it almost completely. My private version of both the nightly [1]
> and release [2] packaging is available online.
>
> I also set up an unofficial KiCad release copr (aimylios/kicad-release)
> [3]. The build of 5.0.0-rc1 is still in progress and it might take a couple
> of hours until the package is available.
>
> One of the biggest changes I made is to move the libraries into separate
> packages (similar to what Carsten has done):
> kicad
> kicad-doc
> kicad-templates
> kicad-symbols
> kicad-footprints
> kicad-packages3D
> Hopefully this or a similar scheme will be adopted by upstream or at least
> for the nightlies.
>
> I would also like to help improving the nightly builds, but I'd prefer if
> this could be handled via pull requests over at the fedora-packaging
> repository [4]. No need to spam the developers mailing list with all this
> packaging stuff. In the end, we Fedora users are still a minority.
>
> Keep up the great work!
>
> Best regards,
> Marcus
>
> [1] https://github.com/aimylios/fedora-kicad-packaging/tree/develop
> [2] https://github.com/aimylios/fedora-kicad-packaging/tree/release
> [3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/aimylios/kicad-release
> [4] https://github.com/KiCad/fedora-packaging
>
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Wayne Stambaugh]

On 2/26/2018 3:14 PM, Aimylios wrote:
> Am 26.02.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
>>
>> Can someone please help Steve out here?  I don't know where our fedora
>> packages are being maintained so I would appreciate someone confirming
>> this patch.  I don't know that there is much we can do about the
>> upstream situation.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>>>
>>>

 Cheers,

 Wayne

 ___
 Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
 Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
 Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
 More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> 
> Hi,
> 
> I'm not involved in Fedora upstream packaging, but like Steve I have
> spent some time to set up a packaging environment for my own, personal
> nightly and release builds, as I am not very happy with the current
> state of the official nightly copr builds.
> I based my work on what is published in the fedora-packaging repository
> on GitHub. Unfortunately the SPEC file is in a poor shape and I ended up
> rewriting it almost completely. My private version of both the nightly
> [1] and release [2] packaging is available online.
> 
> I also set up an unofficial KiCad release copr (aimylios/kicad-release)
> [3]. The build of 5.0.0-rc1 is still in progress and it might take a
> couple of hours until the package is available.
> 
> One of the biggest changes I made is to move the libraries into separate
> packages (similar to what Carsten has done):
> kicad
> kicad-doc
> kicad-templates
> kicad-symbols
> kicad-footprints
> kicad-packages3D
> Hopefully this or a similar scheme will be adopted by upstream or at
> least for the nightlies.
> 
> I would also like to help improving the nightly builds, but I'd prefer
> if this could be handled via pull requests over at the fedora-packaging
> repository [4]. No need to spam the developers mailing list with all
> this packaging stuff. In the end, we Fedora users are still a minority.
> 
> Keep up the great work!
> 
> Best regards,
> Marcus
> 
> [1] https://github.com/aimylios/fedora-kicad-packaging/tree/develop
> [2] https://github.com/aimylios/fedora-kicad-packaging/tree/release
> [3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/aimylios/kicad-release
> [4] https://github.com/KiCad/fedora-packaging
> 

Marcus,

Thank you for packaging KiCad for Fedora.  Hopefully your changes will
be accepted upstream.  I don't have any issues with making KiCad more
package friendly.  The way I see it, the more potential users the
better.  So if we can make changes that improve life for package devs,
we will do our best to accommodate those changes.

Cheers,

Wayne

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Aimylios]

Am 26.02.2018 um 19:42 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:


Can someone please help Steve out here?  I don't know where our fedora
packages are being maintained so I would appreciate someone confirming
this patch.  I don't know that there is much we can do about the
upstream situation.

Thanks,

Wayne






Cheers,

Wayne

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp



Hi,

I'm not involved in Fedora upstream packaging, but like Steve I have 
spent some time to set up a packaging environment for my own, personal 
nightly and release builds, as I am not very happy with the current 
state of the official nightly copr builds.
I based my work on what is published in the fedora-packaging repository 
on GitHub. Unfortunately the SPEC file is in a poor shape and I ended up 
rewriting it almost completely. My private version of both the nightly 
[1] and release [2] packaging is available online.


I also set up an unofficial KiCad release copr (aimylios/kicad-release) 
[3]. The build of 5.0.0-rc1 is still in progress and it might take a 
couple of hours until the package is available.


One of the biggest changes I made is to move the libraries into separate 
packages (similar to what Carsten has done):

kicad
kicad-doc
kicad-templates
kicad-symbols
kicad-footprints
kicad-packages3D
Hopefully this or a similar scheme will be adopted by upstream or at 
least for the nightlies.


I would also like to help improving the nightly builds, but I'd prefer 
if this could be handled via pull requests over at the fedora-packaging 
repository [4]. No need to spam the developers mailing list with all 
this packaging stuff. In the end, we Fedora users are still a minority.


Keep up the great work!

Best regards,
Marcus

[1] https://github.com/aimylios/fedora-kicad-packaging/tree/develop
[2] https://github.com/aimylios/fedora-kicad-packaging/tree/release
[3] https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/aimylios/kicad-release
[4] https://github.com/KiCad/fedora-packaging

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Wayne Stambaugh]

On 2/25/2018 10:48 PM, Steven A. Falco wrote:
> On 02/25/2018 07:31 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>
>>
>> On 02/25/2018 07:25 PM, Rene Pöschl wrote:
>>> On 25/02/18 23:29, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
 Stephen,

 I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library.  This will
 probably be acceptable up to the stable release.  At this point we will
 have to tag each repo.  Are any of our library devs planning on doing
 any major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable
 release?  If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1.

 Cheers,

 Wayne

>>>
>>> I asked a week or so ago if i should tag. Your response was that it is 
>>> unnecessary. Otherwise i would have tagged the libs back then.
>>> l
>>> As i do not yet plan to ban major changes, i tagged the repos with 
>>> "v5.0.0-rc1"
>>>
>>
>> Rene,
>>
>> I don't think there is a major issue here but tagging rc1 wont hurt 
>> anything.  The main thing I am worried about is the stable release and that 
>> the library layout structure and the library names remain constant 
>> throughout the stable 5 release series unless the user specifically chooses 
>> to install newer libraries.  Between now and the stable release, I do expect 
>> some changes to the libraries but we can tag as we go if we need to.
> 
> There are a lot of issues here that I am not necessarily competent to answer, 
> so let me just propose a quick patch to get the copr builds to at least use 
> the v5 libraries instead of the v4 libraries.  That will potentially enable 
> more Fedora users to test with a consistent v5 of kicad, so I see it as a 
> step in the right direction.
> 
> I've attached the patch, and I've tested it in my copr repo here: 
> https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stevenfalco/kicad/
> 
> Basically, this patch replaces the v4 kicad-library repo with the v5 
> kicad-footprints, kicad-packages3D, kicad-templates and kicad-symbols repos.  
> It also sets KICAD_VERSION_EXTRA to the git "commit-count.SHA" so the version 
> is more visible in the help:about dialog.
> 
> I received a pm from a developer off-list, who wants to split the package 
> into separate components, uncoupling the libs from the executables.  That 
> seems like a great idea to me, and lines up with the debian proposal, but 
> clearly that will take more effort to put in place.
> 
> Please let me know if this patch is acceptable, or if you need further 
> changes.
> 
>   Steve

Can someone please help Steve out here?  I don't know where our fedora
packages are being maintained so I would appreciate someone confirming
this patch.  I don't know that there is much we can do about the
upstream situation.

Thanks,

Wayne

> 
> 
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Wayne
>>
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 
> 
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
> 

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Carsten Schoenert]

Am 26.02.2018 um 01:31 schrieb Wayne Stambaugh:
>> As i do not yet plan to ban major changes, i tagged the repos with 
>> "v5.0.0-rc1"
>>
> 
> Rene,
> 
> I don't think there is a major issue here but tagging rc1 wont hurt 
> anything.

Yes, absolutely!
As I started about 2 years ago to keep watching and improving the Debian
packaging of kicad packages a first thing I've done was to automate the
preparation of the needed source tarballs. Keep in mind the kicad
packages need about > 100 git repositories to get data from at this
time. This was really time consuming. Doing these things all
automatically based on a tag has saved a lot of time which is then
better usable for doing the packaging QS for example. Doing a normal
point release is still needing a complete weekend with all the testing.

That's why I've raised the question about versioning especially on the
library side some weeks ago. See point 2 on my starting email about this.

https://www.mail-archive.com/kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net/msg27862.html

Starting with KiCad 5 we decided to split of the various libraries from
the main kicad package, but I need to keep the uploads of the various
stand alone packages in sync because of the relationship between them.
So yes, a consistently naming of tags in the git trees would be really
appreciated!

Doing a RC is not much different from doing a point release. The
following git trees are involved for a complete release.

1. kicad
2. kicad-doc
3. kicad-footprints
4. kicad-i18n
5. kicad-packages3d
6. kicad-symbols
7. kicad-templates

And the kicad website at some point. That is a quite a lot of stuff that
is involved.

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Steven A. Falco]

On 02/25/2018 07:31 PM, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
> 
> 
> On 02/25/2018 07:25 PM, Rene Pöschl wrote:
>> On 25/02/18 23:29, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:
>>> Stephen,
>>>
>>> I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library.  This will
>>> probably be acceptable up to the stable release.  At this point we will
>>> have to tag each repo.  Are any of our library devs planning on doing
>>> any major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable
>>> release?  If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Wayne
>>>
>>
>> I asked a week or so ago if i should tag. Your response was that it is 
>> unnecessary. Otherwise i would have tagged the libs back then.
>> l
>> As i do not yet plan to ban major changes, i tagged the repos with 
>> "v5.0.0-rc1"
>>
> 
> Rene,
> 
> I don't think there is a major issue here but tagging rc1 wont hurt anything. 
>  The main thing I am worried about is the stable release and that the library 
> layout structure and the library names remain constant throughout the stable 
> 5 release series unless the user specifically chooses to install newer 
> libraries.  Between now and the stable release, I do expect some changes to 
> the libraries but we can tag as we go if we need to.

There are a lot of issues here that I am not necessarily competent to answer, 
so let me just propose a quick patch to get the copr builds to at least use the 
v5 libraries instead of the v4 libraries.  That will potentially enable more 
Fedora users to test with a consistent v5 of kicad, so I see it as a step in 
the right direction.

I've attached the patch, and I've tested it in my copr repo here: 
https://copr.fedorainfracloud.org/coprs/stevenfalco/kicad/

Basically, this patch replaces the v4 kicad-library repo with the v5 
kicad-footprints, kicad-packages3D, kicad-templates and kicad-symbols repos.  
It also sets KICAD_VERSION_EXTRA to the git "commit-count.SHA" so the version 
is more visible in the help:about dialog.

I received a pm from a developer off-list, who wants to split the package into 
separate components, uncoupling the libs from the executables.  That seems like 
a great idea to me, and lines up with the debian proposal, but clearly that 
will take more effort to put in place.

Please let me know if this patch is acceptable, or if you need further changes.

Steve


> 
> Cheers,
> 
> Wayne
> 
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

diff --git a/.gitignore b/.gitignore
index b6a2630..91f7aa8 100644
--- a/.gitignore
+++ b/.gitignore
@@ -1,22 +1,5 @@
-kicad-2010.05.27.tar.bz2
-kicad-doc-2010.05.27.tar.bz2
-kicad-libraries-2010.05.27.tar.bz2
-/kicad-2011.01.28.tar.bz2
-/kicad-doc-2011.01.28.tar.bz2
-/kicad-libraries-2011.01.28.tar.bz2
-/kicad-2011.07.12.tar.bz2
-/kicad-doc-2011.07.12.tar.bz2
-/kicad-libraries-2011.07.12.tar.bz2
-/Epcos-MKT-1.0.tar.bz2
-/kicad-2012.01.19.tar.bz2
-/kicad-libraries-2012.01.19.tar.bz2
-/kicad-doc-2012.01.19.tar.bz2
-/kicad-2013.06.11.tar.bz2
-/kicad-libraries-2013.06.11.tar.bz2
-/kicad-walter-libraries-2013.06.11.tar.bz2
-/kicad-doc-2013.06.11.tar.bz2
-/kicad-2014.03.13.tar.xz
-/kicad-libraries-2014.03.13.tar.xz
-/kicad-doc-2014.03.13.tar.xz
-/kicad-walter-libraries-2014.03.13.tar.xz
-/kicad-footprints-2014.03.13.tar.xz
+*.tar.gz
+kicad*.bzr
+kicad-i18n
+*.src.rpm
+kicad.spec
diff --git a/kicad-clone.sh b/kicad-clone.sh
index d0d3352..15da53a 100755
--- a/kicad-clone.sh
+++ b/kicad-clone.sh
@@ -10,13 +10,40 @@ else
 	git clone https://git.launchpad.net/kicad kicad.bzr
 fi
 
-if [ -d kicad-library.bzr ]; then
-	cd kicad-library.bzr
+if [ -d kicad-symbols.bzr ]; then
+	cd kicad-symbols.bzr
 	git fetch origin
 	git reset --hard origin/master
 	cd ..
 else
-	git clone https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-library.git kicad-library.bzr
+	git clone https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-symbols.git kicad-symbols.bzr
+fi
+
+if [ -d kicad-footprints.bzr ]; then
+	cd kicad-footprints.bzr
+	git fetch origin
+	git reset --hard origin/master
+	cd ..
+else
+	git clone https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-footprints.git kicad-footprints.bzr
+fi
+
+if [ -d kicad-packages3D.bzr ]; then
+	cd kicad-packages3D.bzr
+	git fetch origin
+	git reset --hard origin/master
+	cd ..
+else
+	git clone https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-packages3D.git kicad-packages3D.bzr
+fi
+
+if [ -d kicad-templates.bzr ]; then
+	cd kicad-templates.bzr
+	git fetch origin
+	git reset --hard origin/master
+	cd ..
+else
+	git clone https://github.com/KiCad/kicad-templates.git kicad-templates.bzr
 fi
 
 if [ -d kicad-i18n ]; then
diff --git a/kicad-export.sh b/kicad-export.sh
index 05aaaba..e7b4f87 100755
--- a/kicad-export.sh
+++ b/kicad-export.sh
@@ -9,7 +9,7 @@ get_last_rev()
 }
 
 MAIN_REV=$(get_last_rev kicad.bzr)
-LIB_REV=$(get_last_rev 

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Wayne Stambaugh]

On 02/25/2018 07:25 PM, Rene Pöschl wrote:

On 25/02/18 23:29, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:

Stephen,

I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library.  This will
probably be acceptable up to the stable release.  At this point we will
have to tag each repo.  Are any of our library devs planning on doing
any major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable
release?  If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1.

Cheers,

Wayne



I asked a week or so ago if i should tag. Your response was that it is 
unnecessary. Otherwise i would have tagged the libs back then.

l
As i do not yet plan to ban major changes, i tagged the repos with 
"v5.0.0-rc1"




Rene,

I don't think there is a major issue here but tagging rc1 wont hurt 
anything.  The main thing I am worried about is the stable release and 
that the library layout structure and the library names remain constant 
throughout the stable 5 release series unless the user specifically 
chooses to install newer libraries.  Between now and the stable release, 
I do expect some changes to the libraries but we can tag as we go if we 
need to.


Cheers,

Wayne

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Rene Pöschl]

On 25/02/18 23:29, Wayne Stambaugh wrote:

Stephen,

I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library.  This will
probably be acceptable up to the stable release.  At this point we will
have to tag each repo.  Are any of our library devs planning on doing
any major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable
release?  If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1.

Cheers,

Wayne



I asked a week or so ago if i should tag. Your response was that it is 
unnecessary. Otherwise i would have tagged the libs back then.

l
As i do not yet plan to ban major changes, i tagged the repos with 
"v5.0.0-rc1"


___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Nick Østergaard]

2018-02-25 23:29 GMT+01:00 Wayne Stambaugh :

> Stephen,
>
> I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library.  This will
> probably be acceptable up to the stable release.  At this point we will
> have to tag each repo.  Are any of our library devs planning on doing any
> major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable release?
> If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
> On 02/25/2018 09:43 AM, Steven A. Falco wrote:
>
>> Now that 5.0.0-rc1 is out, I'd like to ask how this should be packaged.
>>
>> In particular, I'm using Fedora, and my private builds are built based on
>> the mechanisms from the "fedora-packaging" repo on github.  However, the
>> "fedora-packaging" repo still pulls in the "kicad-libraries" repo from
>> kicad 4.  I think that should probably change at this point.
>>
>> In my private version of "fedora-packaging", I've removed the
>> "kicad-libraries" repo from the build, and added the "kicad-symbols" and
>> "kicad-footprints" repos to the build.
>>
>
> Don't forget kicad-templates and kicad-packages3d.
>
>
>> Are there plans to update the official "fedora-packaging" repo along
>> similar lines, and if so, is there someone I might work with on that?
>> Also, do packaging discussions happen on this mailing list or on a
>> different list?
>>
>
> I would think so.  I know the debian distro packaging is going to be this
> way.  Would one of our fedora package devs care to comment on this?
>

I thought I alread did by replying earlier. But I see now that my inline
comment did not really answer that question explicitly. I want to keep it
update, but upstream fedora packagers have been unresponsive for the kicad
package last time. I guess they were just busy. IMHO it is best to have the
package scripts converge a bit more. But please send patches to the scripts
such that we can get the nighlies updated and tested properly.


>
>
>> One final question - does the kicad team guide package development on
>> each of the various distros, or is it up to each distro owner to sort out
>> how to best package the project for their distro?
>>
>
> We leave this up to the distro package devs as much as possible.  KiCad
> doesn't try to dictate how it should be packaged.
>
> Cheers,
>
> Wayne
>
>
>
>> I don't want to step on any toes - I just want to help if possible.
>>
>> Steve
>>
>> ___
>> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
>> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
>> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>>
>>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Nick Østergaard]

2018-02-25 23:18 GMT+01:00 Carsten Schoenert :

> Am 25.02.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Nick Østergaard:
> > One final question - does the kicad team guide package development on
> each
> > of the various distros, or is it up to each distro owner to sort out how
> to
> > best package the project for their distro?
> >
> > I think every other packager shall look at the notes Debian packager
> > Carsten made on https://wiki.debian.org/KiCad/ and consider if it is
> > applicable on that packagers platform.
>
> I think it's up to the package maintainers of the systems to provide
> valid and usable packages to their users. This work can't be done by
> upstream for all systems at least not in a acceptable quality due the
> lack of time and man power. In the end package names shouldn't really
> matter as the GUI around the package management should make it easy to
> the users to install the needed packages.
>

Hence I mentioned that they should consider what have already or is being
done for debian and the PPA.

>
> > For fedora, I would like to see a wxpython compat package built with
> gtk2.
> > I think debian managed to do this, but I am not sure if this is true or
> how
> > this was done.
>
> Have simply a look at debian/control [1] in the source package. All
> versions of python-wxgtk3.0 are build against libgtk2.0. Even
> python-wxgtk4.0 is still build against libgtk2.0. For more information I
> suggest to get in contact with the maintainers [2].
>

Just that the package script says it depends on gtk2 does not show me the
acutual build config used, which is what I have been looking for. But I
believe you.


>
> [1]
> https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/freewx/wx.git/tree/
> debian/control?id=refs/heads/wxpy3.0-debian
> [2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freewx-maint
>
> --
> Regards
> Carsten Schoenert
>
> ___
> Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
> Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
> More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
>
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Carsten Schoenert]

Am 25.02.2018 um 22:25 schrieb Nick Østergaard:
> One final question - does the kicad team guide package development on each
> of the various distros, or is it up to each distro owner to sort out how to
> best package the project for their distro?
> 
> I think every other packager shall look at the notes Debian packager
> Carsten made on https://wiki.debian.org/KiCad/ and consider if it is
> applicable on that packagers platform.

I think it's up to the package maintainers of the systems to provide
valid and usable packages to their users. This work can't be done by
upstream for all systems at least not in a acceptable quality due the
lack of time and man power. In the end package names shouldn't really
matter as the GUI around the package management should make it easy to
the users to install the needed packages.

> For fedora, I would like to see a wxpython compat package built with gtk2.
> I think debian managed to do this, but I am not sure if this is true or how
> this was done.

Have simply a look at debian/control [1] in the source package. All
versions of python-wxgtk3.0 are build against libgtk2.0. Even
python-wxgtk4.0 is still build against libgtk2.0. For more information I
suggest to get in contact with the maintainers [2].

[1]
https://anonscm.debian.org/cgit/freewx/wx.git/tree/debian/control?id=refs/heads/wxpy3.0-debian
[2] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/freewx-maint

-- 
Regards
Carsten Schoenert

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Wayne Stambaugh]

Stephen,

I would say that you should pull from HEAD of each library.  This will 
probably be acceptable up to the stable release.  At this point we will 
have to tag each repo.  Are any of our library devs planning on doing 
any major reorganization of the libraries between now and the stable 
release?  If so, than we may want to tag the library repos for rc1.


Cheers,

Wayne

On 02/25/2018 09:43 AM, Steven A. Falco wrote:

Now that 5.0.0-rc1 is out, I'd like to ask how this should be packaged.

In particular, I'm using Fedora, and my private builds are built based on the mechanisms from the 
"fedora-packaging" repo on github.  However, the "fedora-packaging" repo still pulls in 
the "kicad-libraries" repo from kicad 4.  I think that should probably change at this point.

In my private version of "fedora-packaging", I've removed the "kicad-libraries" repo from the 
build, and added the "kicad-symbols" and "kicad-footprints" repos to the build.


Don't forget kicad-templates and kicad-packages3d.



Are there plans to update the official "fedora-packaging" repo along similar 
lines, and if so, is there someone I might work with on that?  Also, do packaging 
discussions happen on this mailing list or on a different list?


I would think so.  I know the debian distro packaging is going to be 
this way.  Would one of our fedora package devs care to comment on this?




One final question - does the kicad team guide package development on each of 
the various distros, or is it up to each distro owner to sort out how to best 
package the project for their distro?


We leave this up to the distro package devs as much as possible.  KiCad 
doesn't try to dictate how it should be packaged.


Cheers,

Wayne



I don't want to step on any toes - I just want to help if possible.

Steve

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp



___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

Re: [Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Nick Østergaard]

Den 25. feb. 2018 3.44 PM skrev "Steven A. Falco" :

Now that 5.0.0-rc1 is out, I'd like to ask how this should be packaged.

In particular, I'm using Fedora, and my private builds are built based on
the mechanisms from the "fedora-packaging" repo on github.  However, the
"fedora-packaging" repo still pulls in the "kicad-libraries" repo from
kicad 4.  I think that should probably change at this point.


Yes, feel free to propose patches.


In my private version of "fedora-packaging", I've removed the
"kicad-libraries" repo from the build, and added the "kicad-symbols" and
"kicad-footprints" repos to the build.

Are there plans to update the official "fedora-packaging" repo along
similar lines, and if so, is there someone I might work with on that?
Also, do packaging discussions happen on this mailing list or on a
different list?

I think it os ok to discuss these packaging related things on the dev list.

One final question - does the kicad team guide package development on each
of the various distros, or is it up to each distro owner to sort out how to
best package the project for their distro?

I think every other packager shall look at the notes Debian packager
Carsten made on https://wiki.debian.org/KiCad/ and consider if it is
applicable on that packagers platform.

For fedora, I would like to see a wxpython compat package built with gtk2.
I think debian managed to do this, but I am not sure if this is true or how
this was done.

I don't want to step on any toes - I just want to help if possible.

Steve

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp
___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp

[Kicad-developers] Packaging question

[Steven A. Falco]

Now that 5.0.0-rc1 is out, I'd like to ask how this should be packaged.

In particular, I'm using Fedora, and my private builds are built based on the 
mechanisms from the "fedora-packaging" repo on github.  However, the 
"fedora-packaging" repo still pulls in the "kicad-libraries" repo from kicad 4. 
 I think that should probably change at this point.

In my private version of "fedora-packaging", I've removed the "kicad-libraries" 
repo from the build, and added the "kicad-symbols" and "kicad-footprints" repos 
to the build.

Are there plans to update the official "fedora-packaging" repo along similar 
lines, and if so, is there someone I might work with on that?  Also, do 
packaging discussions happen on this mailing list or on a different list?

One final question - does the kicad team guide package development on each of 
the various distros, or is it up to each distro owner to sort out how to best 
package the project for their distro?

I don't want to step on any toes - I just want to help if possible.

Steve

___
Mailing list: https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
Post to : kicad-developers@lists.launchpad.net
Unsubscribe : https://launchpad.net/~kicad-developers
More help   : https://help.launchpad.net/ListHelp