Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
 Does this look right? 

yes, try your luck.
pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> Does this look right? 

yes, try your luck.
pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:21 AM, John McCabe-Dansted gma...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
 versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
 so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
 (not well tested qt's  lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
 its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
 configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
 shouldn't be the case.

 Apparently this is being fixed:
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/lyx/+bug/775900

Well, with Ubuntu, the procedure is to file an Stable Release Update
request. Do we want to try asking them to upgrade to 1.6.10?

What we want to do, seems to fit best with
   ... Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an
obviously safe patch and (2) affect an application rather than
critical infrastructure packages (like X.org or the kernel). ...
And more precisely:
New upstream microreleases
In some cases, when upstream fixes bugs, they do a new microrelease
instead of just sending patches. If all of the changes are appropriate
for an SRU by the criteria above, then it is acceptable (and usually
easier) to just upload the complete new upstream microrelease instead
of backporting the individual patches. Note that some noise introduced
by autoreconf is okay, but making structural changes to the build
system (such as introducing new library dependencies) is generally
not.

If a new upstream release has more intrusive changes, you need to
request an exception from the Technical Board, especially if you are
going to upload the package with non-SRU changes multiple times in the
future. Please see special cases below.

Here is a argument we could make for an SRU to 1.6.10

1) This is a one off request, 1.6.10 is the final 1.6.x release so
terms relating to frequent updates do not apply.
2) Monkeytesting has been used to improve the quality of LyX and
detect regressions, which together with LyX's plentiful ASSERTs has
found to be a good way of finding bugs. Iirc the 1.6.5 was the last
LyX that did not have/benefit from automated testing. (There was even
a presentation about Mon-Keytest at linux.conf.au 2011 :)
3) LyX 1.6.10 has been out for 2 months. No regressions have been reported.
4) No dependencies need to be added.
5) LyX is an application, not critical infrastructure, indeed
apt-rdepends -r lyx reports no dependencies.
6) Most changes to documentation etc. after 1.5 years of bug fixing,
diff of 1.6.{5,10}/src ~4000 lines
7) The focus of these changes are primarily bug fixes, though a script
has been added that allows LyX 1.6.10 to open the newer LyX 2.x
documents. This is important as it allows LyX 1.6.10 users to
collaborate with users of newer versions of LyX. With respect to
Ubuntu, this will allow LTS and non-LTS (Natty and on) users to
collaborate.

The bugs fixed in this micro-release include, for example, this bug,
which has been causing Ubuntu users much grief, and is a regression
(note that monkeytesting was not used in earlier versions of LyX):
   https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lyx/+bug/560715

Does this look right? Does anyone want to disagree?

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Tue, Jul 5, 2011 at 9:21 AM, John McCabe-Dansted  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
>> the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
>> versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
>> so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
>> (not well tested qt's && lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
>> its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
>> configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
>> shouldn't be the case.
>
> Apparently this is being fixed:
>  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/lyx/+bug/775900

Well, with Ubuntu, the procedure is to file an "Stable Release Update"
request. Do we want to try asking them to upgrade to 1.6.10?

What we want to do, seems to fit best with
   "... Bugs which do not fit under above categories, but (1) have an
obviously safe patch and (2) affect an application rather than
critical infrastructure packages (like X.org or the kernel). ..."
And more precisely:
"New upstream microreleases
In some cases, when upstream fixes bugs, they do a new microrelease
instead of just sending patches. If all of the changes are appropriate
for an SRU by the criteria above, then it is acceptable (and usually
easier) to just upload the complete new upstream microrelease instead
of backporting the individual patches. Note that some noise introduced
by autoreconf is okay, but making structural changes to the build
system (such as introducing new library dependencies) is generally
not.

If a new upstream release has more intrusive changes, you need to
request an exception from the Technical Board, especially if you are
going to upload the package with non-SRU changes multiple times in the
future. Please see special cases below."

Here is a argument we could make for an SRU to 1.6.10

1) This is a one off request, 1.6.10 is the final 1.6.x release so
terms relating to frequent updates do not apply.
2) Monkeytesting has been used to improve the quality of LyX and
detect regressions, which together with LyX's plentiful ASSERTs has
found to be a good way of finding bugs. Iirc the 1.6.5 was the last
LyX that did not have/benefit from automated testing. (There was even
a presentation about Mon-Keytest at linux.conf.au 2011 :)
3) LyX 1.6.10 has been out for 2 months. No regressions have been reported.
4) No dependencies need to be added.
5) LyX is an application, not "critical infrastructure", indeed
"apt-rdepends -r lyx" reports no dependencies.
6) Most changes to documentation etc. after 1.5 years of bug fixing,
diff of 1.6.{5,10}/src ~4000 lines
7) The focus of these changes are primarily bug fixes, though a script
has been added that allows LyX 1.6.10 to open the newer LyX 2.x
documents. This is important as it allows LyX 1.6.10 users to
collaborate with users of newer versions of LyX. With respect to
Ubuntu, this will allow LTS and non-LTS (Natty and on) users to
collaborate.

The bugs fixed in this micro-release include, for example, this bug,
which has been causing Ubuntu users much grief, and is a regression
(note that monkeytesting was not used in earlier versions of LyX):
   https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/lyx/+bug/560715

Does this look right? Does anyone want to disagree?

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
  Possibly we could try to get Rainer recognized as a Per-package
  Uploader for LyX, if Rainer wants this. Getting involved in Ubuntu is
  reputably easier than Debian. This would involve some collaboration
  with an Ubuntu sponsor and an application like the following:
https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AdrianPerez/PerPackageUploaderApplication

 yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
 whole thing except extremistic solutions like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
 devs to stop producing lyx binaries.


Thanks for the trust you put in me, but I do not nearly know enough about
building software, configuration and ubuntu to feel comfortable with this
role.
I do not think that a ppa can be considered an extremistic solution, as it
would allow to provide all the releases for older ubuntu versions - which in
itself is very useful. Obviously, it is not a solution to ubuntu bundling
old / unsuitable releases of LyX with their releases. For this an inside
person would be very useful.

Rainer



 pavel




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Liviu Andronic landronim...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
  yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about
 the
  whole thing except extremistic solutions like doing ppas and ask ubuntu

  devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
 
 Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
 manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
 worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
 code.


Absolutely - not only bleeding edge, but also during a support cycle of
ubuntu  to have new LyX releases available.

Liviu




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, John McCabe-Dansted gma...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Liviu Andronic landronim...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
  yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about
 the
  whole thing except extremistic solutions like doing ppas and ask
 ubuntu
 
  devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
 
  Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
  manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
  worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
  code.
  Liviu

 We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
 what the recommended way of detecting an Ubuntu build environment, but
 we could e.g. set configure to refuse to build if build-type!=rel and
 PREFIX=/usr, perhaps giving a message like:

  This is a prerelease of LyX, for testing purposes only. The document
 format used by this pre-release is not stable and probably won't be
 fully compatible with any stable release. Please do not package this
 into a stable distribution, instead package the previous stable
 version. Aborting now.


I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
their system (if ubuntu is happy with that) and also put the info in the
help files - same for other distros, for which there are binaries available
(openSuse now - thanks Cor).

In addition one could approach ubuntu-tweak to have the ppa included in
their next release.



 --
 John C. McCabe-Dansted




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

LyX Ubuntu package contributions --- WAS: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

Checking

http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers, and
it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:

Some fresh blood for the pkg-lyx team would be cool too
(Sven,
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lyx-devel/2011-July/005174.html
)

So there really seems to be a chance here.

So the question is: who would be interested in contributing to lyx in
ubuntu?

Rainer


On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, John McCabe-Dansted gma...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Liviu Andronic landronim...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
  yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about
 the
  whole thing except extremistic solutions like doing ppas and ask
 ubuntu
 
  devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
 
  Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
  manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
  worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
  code.
  Liviu

 We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
 what the recommended way of detecting an Ubuntu build environment, but
 we could e.g. set configure to refuse to build if build-type!=rel and
 PREFIX=/usr, perhaps giving a message like:

  This is a prerelease of LyX, for testing purposes only. The document
 format used by this pre-release is not stable and probably won't be
 fully compatible with any stable release. Please do not package this
 into a stable distribution, instead package the previous stable
 version. Aborting now.


 I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
 their system (if ubuntu is happy with that) and also put the info in the
 help files - same for other distros, for which there are binaries available
 (openSuse now - thanks Cor).

 In addition one could approach ubuntu-tweak to have the ppa included in
 their next release.



 --
 John C. McCabe-Dansted




 --
 Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
 UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

 Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
 Stellenbosch University
 South Africa

 Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
 Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
 Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

 Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

 email:  rai...@krugs.de

 Skype:  RMkrug




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX Ubuntu package contributions --- WAS: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
 Checking
 
 http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
 I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers, and
 it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:
 
 Some fresh blood for the pkg-lyx team would be cool too
 (Sven,
 http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lyx-devel/2011-July/005174.html
 )
 
 So there really seems to be a chance here.

these are debian guys (Sven is doing most of the work and unfortunately
planning leave the maintenance) unrelated to ubuntu.

 So the question is: who would be interested in contributing to lyx in
 ubuntu?

reading the other mails i guess the game is over :)
pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 Thanks for the trust you put in me, but I do not nearly know enough about
 building software, configuration and ubuntu to feel comfortable with this
 role.

I don't think that Ubuntu would let you fill the role without a mentor
anyway. I imagine more important than knowledge is
(a) finding an Ubuntu member willing to act as a mentor; and
(b) having the enough time to commit to working with Ubuntu over a
period of time etc.

But I think getting the PPA is a step in the right direction either
way.  In addition to the advantage of having a PPA, making a PPA would
get you some skill as well as a pinch of respect in talking to Ubuntu,
if that's ultimately what you decide to do.

 I do not think that a ppa can be considered an extremistic solution, as it

I think asking Ubuntu to drop LyX from their official repos, was the
extremistic part of that solution, not the creation of a PPA.

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, John McCabe-Dansted gma...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
  Thanks for the trust you put in me, but I do not nearly know enough about
  building software, configuration and ubuntu to feel comfortable with this
  role.

 I don't think that Ubuntu would let you fill the role without a mentor
 anyway. I imagine more important than knowledge is
 (a) finding an Ubuntu member willing to act as a mentor; and
 (b) having the enough time to commit to working with Ubuntu over a
 period of time etc.


I might definitely have problems with this part.



 But I think getting the PPA is a step in the right direction either
 way.  In addition to the advantage of having a PPA, making a PPA would
 get you some skill as well as a pinch of respect in talking to Ubuntu,
 if that's ultimately what you decide to do.


No - I have my niche and do not intend to change to software development. I
just started this out of the realisation that I, as an advanced LyX user,
had to compile LyX myself to have the newest releases on Ubuntu, despite the
fact that there are ppas for many different projects. And if Even I find
this slightly annoying, I can not imagine a normal ubuntu user doing this.



  I do not think that a ppa can be considered an extremistic solution, as
 it

 I think asking Ubuntu to drop LyX from their official repos, was the
 extremistic part of that solution, not the creation of a PPA.


Ah - that would explain.

Anyway - I will definitely follow up the ppa and with Rob's active help, we
will be able to set it up as soon as possible.

Cheers,

Rainer


 --
 John C. McCabe-Dansted




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX Ubuntu package contributions --- WAS: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Rainer M Krug wrote:
  Checking
 
  http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
  I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers,
 and
  it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:
 
  Some fresh blood for the pkg-lyx team would be cool too
  (Sven,
 
 http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lyx-devel/2011-July/005174.html
  )
 
  So there really seems to be a chance here.

 these are debian guys (Sven is doing most of the work and unfortunately
 planning leave the maintenance) unrelated to ubuntu.


Ups - sorry - must have overlooked that part.



  So the question is: who would be interested in contributing to lyx in
  ubuntu?

 reading the other mails i guess the game is over :)


As I said - at the moment definitely no ubuntu contributions from me, but
ppa, yes.

Cheers,

Rainer

pavel




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to

Hmm, if we wanted to be really fancy we could add an upgrade to
lyx-2.0.latest in the about dialog, and replace the You have
crashed, please report a bug message with one that suggests
upgrading.

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM, John McCabe-Dansted gma...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
  I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to

 Hmm, if we wanted to be really fancy we could add an upgrade to
 lyx-2.0.latest in the about dialog, and replace the You have
 crashed, please report a bug message with one that suggests
 upgrading.


I thought about that as well, but it might be problematic with Ubuntu: the
reason why ubuntu-tweak was not included in the ubuntu cd, was that it
contained mechanisms to add ppas to the system - it seems that ubuntu does
not like it if it is to easy to add external sources. But it might work if
it just downloads the deb and installs it. This would effectively be an
update check - in my opinion, this would be really cool:

Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
one, offer to download it and install it.

Problem might be: different distros and different mechanisms, but one could
start with one repo and add them on the go.

But I would think, it is not to difficult to do?

Rainer



 --
 John C. McCabe-Dansted




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
 Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
 one, offer to download it and install it.

this is really not our bussines. each distro has its own package
managment and there is no man power to care about all of them
(if you don't want to cripple dependencies and so on).

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
 I think asking Ubuntu to drop LyX from their official repos, was the
 extremistic part of that solution, not the creation of a PPA.

that was it :)
p

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Rainer M Krug wrote:
  Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
  one, offer to download it and install it.

 this is really not our bussines. each distro has its own package
 managment and there is no man power to care about all of them
 (if you don't want to cripple dependencies and so on).


OK - point taken.



 pavel




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
 their system (if ubuntu is happy with that) and also put the info in the
 help files

One innocent Easter egg would be just this: for all non-stable
releases and SVN/GIT revisions, have a dialogue pop-up at first run
(and at each run until a 'don't show this dialogue any more' option is
checked) that would explain that the release distributed by the distro
is unstable, contains critical bugs and that it would be wiser to
check our page on lyx.org (to be created) for info on how to install
latest stable binary distributed by us (PPA, openSuse, etc.) for the
distributions that we support.

Is this feasible?
Liviu


 - same for other distros, for which there are binaries available
 (openSuse now - thanks Cor).
 In addition one could approach ubuntu-tweak to have the ppa included in
 their next release.

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 I thought about that as well, but it might be problematic with Ubuntu: the
 reason why ubuntu-tweak was not included in the ubuntu cd, was that it
 contained mechanisms to add ppas to the system - it seems that ubuntu does
 not like it if it is to easy to add external sources. But it might work if
 it just downloads the deb and installs it. This would effectively be an
 update check - in my opinion, this would be really cool:
 Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
 one, offer to download it and install it.

A 'Check for Updates' in Help menu would be handy, indeed. As Pavel
said, it's not really our business to provide automatic updates to LyX
(across platforms, mind we), but one thing we can do is point the user
to the right website for her distribution: the Win and Mac download
pages for Win and Mac users, respectively, and the Linux explanation
page on supported distros (PPA, openSuse, etc.).

A similar message could be used for crashes: if it crashed and an
old/unstable version was in use, inform user to first update her LyX
version. (We should keep in mind that R provides support only for the
latest stable version, while MPlayer goes as far as supporting only
latest SVN.)

This should work just nicely and users would at least get a first
pointer in the right direction.
Liviu


 Problem might be: different distros and different mechanisms, but one could
 start with one repo and add them on the go.
 But I would think, it is not to difficult to do?
 Rainer


 --
 John C. McCabe-Dansted



 --
 Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
 UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

 Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
 Stellenbosch University
 South Africa

 Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
 Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
 Fax (F):       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

 Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

 email:      rai...@krugs.de

 Skype:      RMkrug





-- 
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Liviu Andronic wrote:
 Is this feasible?

you know where the problems is only after the release.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
 versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
 so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
 (not well tested qt's  lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
 its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
 configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
 shouldn't be the case.

Apparently this is being fixed:
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/lyx/+bug/775900

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:

> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> > Possibly we could try to get Rainer recognized as a Per-package
> > Uploader for LyX, if Rainer wants this. Getting involved in Ubuntu is
> > reputably easier than Debian. This would involve some collaboration
> > with an Ubuntu sponsor and an application like the following:
> >   https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AdrianPerez/PerPackageUploaderApplication
>
> yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
> whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
> devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
>

Thanks for the trust you put in me, but I do not nearly know enough about
building software, configuration and ubuntu to feel comfortable with this
role.
I do not think that a ppa can be considered an "extremistic" solution, as it
would allow to provide all the releases for older ubuntu versions - which in
itself is very useful. Obviously, it is not a solution to ubuntu bundling
old / unsuitable releases of LyX with their releases. For this an "inside
person" would be very useful.

Rainer



> pavel
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 5:33 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:

> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
> > yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about
> the
> > whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
>
> > devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
> >
> Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
> manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
> worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
> code.
>

Absolutely - not only bleeding edge, but also during a support cycle of
ubuntu  to have new LyX releases available.

Liviu
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:

> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Liviu Andronic 
> wrote:
> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
> >> yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about
> the
> >> whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask
> ubuntu
> >
> >> devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
> >>
> > Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
> > manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
> > worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
> > code.
> > Liviu
>
> We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
> what the recommended way of detecting an Ubuntu build environment, but
> we could e.g. set configure to refuse to build if build-type!=rel and
> PREFIX=/usr, perhaps giving a message like:
>
>  "This is a prerelease of LyX, for testing purposes only. The document
> format used by this pre-release is not stable and probably won't be
> fully compatible with any stable release. Please do not package this
> into a stable distribution, instead package the previous stable
> version. Aborting now."


I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
their system (if ubuntu is happy with that) and also put the info in the
help files - same for other distros, for which there are binaries available
(openSuse now - thanks Cor).

In addition one could approach ubuntu-tweak to have the ppa included in
their next release.


>
> --
> John C. McCabe-Dansted
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

LyX Ubuntu package contributions --- WAS: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

Checking

http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers, and
it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:

"Some fresh blood for the pkg-lyx team would be cool too"
(Sven,
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lyx-devel/2011-July/005174.html
)

So there really seems to be a chance here.

So the question is: who would be interested in contributing to lyx in
ubuntu?

Rainer


On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:

>
>
> On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 1:06 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>
>> On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Liviu Andronic 
>> wrote:
>> > On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
>> >> yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about
>> the
>> >> whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask
>> ubuntu
>> >
>> >> devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
>> >>
>> > Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
>> > manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
>> > worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
>> > code.
>> > Liviu
>>
>> We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
>> what the recommended way of detecting an Ubuntu build environment, but
>> we could e.g. set configure to refuse to build if build-type!=rel and
>> PREFIX=/usr, perhaps giving a message like:
>>
>>  "This is a prerelease of LyX, for testing purposes only. The document
>> format used by this pre-release is not stable and probably won't be
>> fully compatible with any stable release. Please do not package this
>> into a stable distribution, instead package the previous stable
>> version. Aborting now."
>
>
> I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
> their system (if ubuntu is happy with that) and also put the info in the
> help files - same for other distros, for which there are binaries available
> (openSuse now - thanks Cor).
>
> In addition one could approach ubuntu-tweak to have the ppa included in
> their next release.
>
>
>>
>> --
>> John C. McCabe-Dansted
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
> UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)
>
> Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
> Stellenbosch University
> South Africa
>
> Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
> Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
> Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44
>
> Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44
>
> email:  rai...@krugs.de
>
> Skype:  RMkrug
>
>


-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX Ubuntu package contributions --- WAS: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
> Checking
> 
> http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
> I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers, and
> it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:
> 
> "Some fresh blood for the pkg-lyx team would be cool too"
> (Sven,
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lyx-devel/2011-July/005174.html
> )
> 
> So there really seems to be a chance here.

these are debian guys (Sven is doing most of the work and unfortunately
planning leave the maintenance) unrelated to ubuntu.

> So the question is: who would be interested in contributing to lyx in
> ubuntu?

reading the other mails i guess the game is over :)
pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> Thanks for the trust you put in me, but I do not nearly know enough about
> building software, configuration and ubuntu to feel comfortable with this
> role.

I don't think that Ubuntu would let you fill the role without a mentor
anyway. I imagine more important than knowledge is
(a) finding an Ubuntu member willing to act as a mentor; and
(b) having the enough time to commit to working with Ubuntu over a
period of time etc.

But I think getting the PPA is a step in the right direction either
way.  In addition to the advantage of having a PPA, making a PPA would
get you some skill as well as a pinch of respect in talking to Ubuntu,
if that's ultimately what you decide to do.

> I do not think that a ppa can be considered an "extremistic" solution, as it

I think asking Ubuntu to drop LyX from their official repos, was the
"extremistic" part of that solution, not the creation of a PPA.

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 1:38 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> > Thanks for the trust you put in me, but I do not nearly know enough about
> > building software, configuration and ubuntu to feel comfortable with this
> > role.
>
> I don't think that Ubuntu would let you fill the role without a mentor
> anyway. I imagine more important than knowledge is
> (a) finding an Ubuntu member willing to act as a mentor; and
> (b) having the enough time to commit to working with Ubuntu over a
> period of time etc.
>

I might definitely have problems with this part.


>
> But I think getting the PPA is a step in the right direction either
> way.  In addition to the advantage of having a PPA, making a PPA would
> get you some skill as well as a pinch of respect in talking to Ubuntu,
> if that's ultimately what you decide to do.
>

No - I have my niche and do not intend to change to software development. I
just started this out of the realisation that I, as an advanced LyX user,
had to compile LyX myself to have the newest releases on Ubuntu, despite the
fact that there are ppas for many different projects. And if Even I find
this slightly annoying, I can not imagine a normal ubuntu user doing this.


>
> > I do not think that a ppa can be considered an "extremistic" solution, as
> it
>
> I think asking Ubuntu to drop LyX from their official repos, was the
> "extremistic" part of that solution, not the creation of a PPA.
>

Ah - that would explain.

Anyway - I will definitely follow up the ppa and with Rob's active help, we
will be able to set it up as soon as possible.

Cheers,

Rainer


> --
> John C. McCabe-Dansted
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX Ubuntu package contributions --- WAS: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 12:27 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:

> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > Checking
> >
> > http://packages.ubuntu.com/natty/lyx
> > I found that Per Olofson and Sven Hoexter are the original maintainers,
> and
> > it seems they would not mind somebody new in the team:
> >
> > "Some fresh blood for the pkg-lyx team would be cool too"
> > (Sven,
> >
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-lyx-devel/2011-July/005174.html
> > )
> >
> > So there really seems to be a chance here.
>
> these are debian guys (Sven is doing most of the work and unfortunately
> planning leave the maintenance) unrelated to ubuntu.
>

Ups - sorry - must have overlooked that part.


>
> > So the question is: who would be interested in contributing to lyx in
> > ubuntu?
>
> reading the other mails i guess the game is over :)
>

As I said - at the moment definitely no ubuntu contributions from me, but
ppa, yes.

Cheers,

Rainer

pavel
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to

Hmm, if we wanted to be really fancy we could add an "upgrade to
lyx-2.0.latest" in the about dialog, and replace the "You have
crashed, please report a bug" message with one that suggests
upgrading.

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:10 PM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:

> On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> > I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
>
> Hmm, if we wanted to be really fancy we could add an "upgrade to
> lyx-2.0.latest" in the about dialog, and replace the "You have
> crashed, please report a bug" message with one that suggests
> upgrading.
>

I thought about that as well, but it might be problematic with Ubuntu: the
reason why ubuntu-tweak was not included in the ubuntu cd, was that it
contained mechanisms to add ppas to the system - it seems that ubuntu does
not like it if it is to easy to add external sources. But it might work if
it just downloads the deb and installs it. This would effectively be an
"update check" - in my opinion, this would be really cool:

Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
one, offer to download it and install it.

Problem might be: different distros and different mechanisms, but one could
start with one repo and add them on the go.

But I would think, it is not to difficult to do?

Rainer


>
> --
> John C. McCabe-Dansted
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
> Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
> one, offer to download it and install it.

this is really not our bussines. each distro has its own package
managment and there is no man power to care about all of them
(if you don't want to cripple dependencies and so on).

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> I think asking Ubuntu to drop LyX from their official repos, was the
> "extremistic" part of that solution, not the creation of a PPA.

that was it :)
p

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 4:48 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:

> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
> > one, offer to download it and install it.
>
> this is really not our bussines. each distro has its own package
> managment and there is no man power to care about all of them
> (if you don't want to cripple dependencies and so on).
>

OK - point taken.


>
> pavel
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 11:09 AM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> I would rather inform the user about the ppa and how they can add it to
> their system (if ubuntu is happy with that) and also put the info in the
> help files
>
One innocent Easter egg would be just this: for all non-stable
releases and SVN/GIT revisions, have a dialogue pop-up at first run
(and at each run until a 'don't show this dialogue any more' option is
checked) that would explain that the release distributed by the distro
is unstable, contains critical bugs and that it would be wiser to
check our page on lyx.org (to be created) for info on how to install
latest stable binary distributed by us (PPA, openSuse, etc.) for the
distributions that we support.

Is this feasible?
Liviu


> - same for other distros, for which there are binaries available
> (openSuse now - thanks Cor).
> In addition one could approach ubuntu-tweak to have the ppa included in
> their next release.
>

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Mon, Jul 4, 2011 at 2:21 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> I thought about that as well, but it might be problematic with Ubuntu: the
> reason why ubuntu-tweak was not included in the ubuntu cd, was that it
> contained mechanisms to add ppas to the system - it seems that ubuntu does
> not like it if it is to easy to add external sources. But it might work if
> it just downloads the deb and installs it. This would effectively be an
> "update check" - in my opinion, this would be really cool:
> Check every week for updates and if there is a newer version, if there is
> one, offer to download it and install it.
>
A 'Check for Updates' in Help menu would be handy, indeed. As Pavel
said, it's not really our business to provide automatic updates to LyX
(across platforms, mind we), but one thing we can do is point the user
to the right website for her distribution: the Win and Mac download
pages for Win and Mac users, respectively, and the Linux explanation
page on supported distros (PPA, openSuse, etc.).

A similar message could be used for crashes: if it crashed and an
old/unstable version was in use, inform user to first update her LyX
version. (We should keep in mind that R provides support only for the
latest stable version, while MPlayer goes as far as supporting only
latest SVN.)

This should work just nicely and users would at least get a first
pointer in the right direction.
Liviu


> Problem might be: different distros and different mechanisms, but one could
> start with one repo and add them on the go.
> But I would think, it is not to difficult to do?
> Rainer
>
>>
>> --
>> John C. McCabe-Dansted
>
>
>
> --
> Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
> UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)
>
> Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
> Stellenbosch University
> South Africa
>
> Tel :       +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
> Cell:       +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
> Fax (F):       +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44
>
> Fax (D):    +49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44
>
> email:      rai...@krugs.de
>
> Skype:      RMkrug
>
>



-- 
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Liviu Andronic wrote:
> Is this feasible?

you know where the problems is only after the release.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
> the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
> versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
> so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
> (not well tested qt's && lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
> its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
> configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
> shouldn't be the case.

Apparently this is being fixed:
  https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/natty/+source/lyx/+bug/775900

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Liviu Andronic landronim...@gmail.com wrote:
 On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
 whole thing except extremistic solutions like doing ppas and ask ubuntu

 devs to stop producing lyx binaries.

 Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
 manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
 worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
 code.
 Liviu

We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
what the recommended way of detecting an Ubuntu build environment, but
we could e.g. set configure to refuse to build if build-type!=rel and
PREFIX=/usr, perhaps giving a message like:

 This is a prerelease of LyX, for testing purposes only. The document
format used by this pre-release is not stable and probably won't be
fully compatible with any stable release. Please do not package this
into a stable distribution, instead package the previous stable
version. Aborting now.

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
 We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall

hehehe. it reminds me time when climm developer (that time micq)
was not able to push critical fixes into the debian release of his package.
in certain moment his frustration exceeded the critical threshold
and baked small hidden easter egg (can't remember exactly the whole story
but somehow even hidden from the deb maintainer's setup, he was so careful:).
the compilation went fine, but the moment micq distributed binary
was run on 3rd parties it halted with some message like do not use stupid
debian packaging and download my own instead -  or something of that sort.

there was furious reaction from some of debian developers when the
egg publicly cracked and they wanted to expell micq from the distro
(which actually seems better than distributing damaged soft
by ignoring critical issues). but at the end things calmed down,
the issues were fixed and developer achieved what he wanted...

soo... who has the patch ... :D


seriously, the only real solution is to find someone on ubuntu who
wants to care about the package. ppa's are second rate issue 
when the basic and most encountered package is constantly wrong.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
 We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall

 hehehe. it reminds me time when climm developer (that time micq)
 was not able to push critical fixes into the debian release of his package.
 in certain moment his frustration exceeded the critical threshold
 and baked small hidden easter egg (can't remember exactly the whole story
 but somehow even hidden from the deb maintainer's setup, he was so careful:).
 the compilation went fine, but the moment micq distributed binary
 was run on 3rd parties it halted with some message like do not use stupid
 debian packaging and download my own instead -  or something of that sort.

[citation]
http://lwn.net/Articles/22991/

 there was furious reaction from some of debian developers when the
 egg publicly cracked and they wanted to expell micq from the distro
 (which actually seems better than distributing damaged soft
 by ignoring critical issues). but at the end things calmed down,
 the issues were fixed and developer achieved what he wanted...

 soo... who has the patch ... :D

One might hope that merely threatening to include such an egg would be
enough to persuade Ubuntu to drop the package :P.

Emitting a build failure when attempting to install a prerelease to
/bin would presumably cause less drama, and might be appropriate if we
wanted no distribution to ever package a prerelease. I guess it is
reasonable for Debian to package a prerelease in unstable on the
assumption the LyX release occurs before the Debian release (maybe
that is what happened, and Ubuntu just blindly synced from Debian.)
However even then it might be better for Debian to package the old LyX
anyway. A fairly stable LyX like 1.6.9 should already have most of the
bugs beaten out and not really have much need for updates, thus being
more suitable for a stable distribution than 2.0.0 anyway.

 seriously, the only real solution is to find someone on ubuntu who
 wants to care about the package. ppa's are second rate issue
 when the basic and most encountered package is constantly wrong.

I agree than in the specific case of Ubuntu, the only real solution is
to have a maintainer who cares about LyX.

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
 However even then it might be better for Debian to package the old LyX
 anyway. A fairly stable LyX like 1.6.9 should already have most of the
 bugs beaten out and not really have much need for updates, thus being
 more suitable for a stable distribution than 2.0.0 anyway.

this is not debian problem at all. stable ships 1.6.7. the problem is that
ubuntu takes testing (or unstable?) release and then does not bump important
fixes as an regular update.

my interpretation was thats most probably because there is no one interested
in lyx maintenance, not that ubuntu is against bumping new version per se.
but i know very little about buntu policies.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 11:33 PM, Liviu Andronic  wrote:
> On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
>> yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
>> whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
>
>> devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
>>
> Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
> manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
> worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
> code.
> Liviu

We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
what the recommended way of detecting an Ubuntu build environment, but
we could e.g. set configure to refuse to build if build-type!=rel and
PREFIX=/usr, perhaps giving a message like:

 "This is a prerelease of LyX, for testing purposes only. The document
format used by this pre-release is not stable and probably won't be
fully compatible with any stable release. Please do not package this
into a stable distribution, instead package the previous stable
version. Aborting now."

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall

hehehe. it reminds me time when climm developer (that time micq)
was not able to push critical fixes into the debian release of his package.
in certain moment his frustration exceeded the critical threshold
and baked small hidden easter egg (can't remember exactly the whole story
but somehow even hidden from the deb maintainer's setup, he was so careful:).
the compilation went fine, but the moment micq distributed binary
was run on 3rd parties it halted with some message like "do not use stupid
debian packaging and download my own instead" -  or something of that sort.

there was furious reaction from some of debian developers when the
egg publicly cracked and they wanted to expell micq from the distro
(which actually seems better than distributing damaged soft
by ignoring critical issues). but at the end things calmed down,
the issues were fixed and developer achieved what he wanted...

soo... who has the patch ... :D


seriously, the only real solution is to find someone on ubuntu who
wants to care about the package. ppa's are second rate issue 
when the basic and most encountered package is constantly wrong.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Sun, Jul 3, 2011 at 8:25 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>> We could detect the Ubuntu build environment and break. I don't recall
>
> hehehe. it reminds me time when climm developer (that time micq)
> was not able to push critical fixes into the debian release of his package.
> in certain moment his frustration exceeded the critical threshold
> and baked small hidden easter egg (can't remember exactly the whole story
> but somehow even hidden from the deb maintainer's setup, he was so careful:).
> the compilation went fine, but the moment micq distributed binary
> was run on 3rd parties it halted with some message like "do not use stupid
> debian packaging and download my own instead" -  or something of that sort.

[citation]
http://lwn.net/Articles/22991/

> there was furious reaction from some of debian developers when the
> egg publicly cracked and they wanted to expell micq from the distro
> (which actually seems better than distributing damaged soft
> by ignoring critical issues). but at the end things calmed down,
> the issues were fixed and developer achieved what he wanted...
>
> soo... who has the patch ... :D

One might hope that merely threatening to include such an egg would be
enough to persuade Ubuntu to drop the package :P.

Emitting a build failure when attempting to install a prerelease to
/bin would presumably cause less drama, and might be appropriate if we
wanted no distribution to ever package a prerelease. I guess it is
reasonable for Debian to package a prerelease in unstable on the
assumption the LyX release occurs before the Debian release (maybe
that is what happened, and Ubuntu just blindly synced from Debian.)
However even then it might be better for Debian to package the old LyX
anyway. A fairly stable LyX like 1.6.9 should already have most of the
bugs beaten out and not really have much need for updates, thus being
more suitable for a stable distribution than 2.0.0 anyway.

> seriously, the only real solution is to find someone on ubuntu who
> wants to care about the package. ppa's are second rate issue
> when the basic and most encountered package is constantly wrong.

I agree than in the specific case of Ubuntu, the only real solution is
to have a maintainer who cares about LyX.

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> However even then it might be better for Debian to package the old LyX
> anyway. A fairly stable LyX like 1.6.9 should already have most of the
> bugs beaten out and not really have much need for updates, thus being
> more suitable for a stable distribution than 2.0.0 anyway.

this is not debian problem at all. stable ships 1.6.7. the problem is that
ubuntu takes testing (or unstable?) release and then does not bump important
fixes as an regular update.

my interpretation was thats most probably because there is no one interested
in lyx maintenance, not that ubuntu is against bumping new version per se.
but i know very little about buntu policies.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
 whole thing except extremistic solutions like doing ppas and ask ubuntu

 devs to stop producing lyx binaries.

Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
code.
Liviu

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 10:13 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
> yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
> whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask ubuntu

> devs to stop producing lyx binaries.
>
Something that they would probably deny. In any case, even if we
manage to get proper binaries into the Ubuntu cycle, it is still
worthy to have a PPA available for compatibility and bleeding-edge
code.
Liviu

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
 I have the feeling we are getting somewhere with the creation of the ppa for
 LyX.

side note.

firstly, do you know how the official binaries are prepared for ubuntu.
are they blindly taken from debian or someone compiles the stuff again?

secondly, is it possible to be ubuntu maintainer for a single package like
lyx?

the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
(not well tested qt's  lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
shouldn't be the case.

having somebody within the ubuntu team who cares about lyx packages would be
much more valuable than creating ppas (hint hint!:)

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 Rainer M Krug wrote:
 I have the feeling we are getting somewhere with the creation of the ppa for
 LyX.

 side note.

 firstly, do you know how the official binaries are prepared for ubuntu.
 are they blindly taken from debian or someone compiles the stuff again?

$ dpkg -l | grep lyx-common
ii  lyx-common  1.6.5-1ubuntu1 Architecture-independent files for LyX

Looks like they compile their own. (Unless Debian distributes packages
with versions like 1.6.5-1ubuntu1 ;).

 secondly, is it possible to be ubuntu maintainer for a single package like
 lyx?

Ubuntu doesn't really have package maintainers. There are really into
doing things as a community ;). There are Per-package Uploaders
however, described here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers.

 the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
 versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
 so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
 (not well tested qt's  lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
 its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
 configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
 shouldn't be the case.

 having somebody within the ubuntu team who cares about lyx packages would be
 much more valuable than creating ppas (hint hint!:)

I could try suggesting on ubuntu-devel-discuss that lyx would be a
good candidate for more frequent releases. Something like:

Ubuntu doesn't officially support packages in universe, but upstream
developers often support Ubuntu, even adding workarounds to Ubuntu
specific bugs. It is then frustrating for them to get the same bug
reports over and over since the version in Ubuntu is frozen for six
months. I suggest that Ubuntu offer to sync packages for certain
upstream projects upon request from upsteam. LyX would be a good
candidate:
1) Development is done on trunk. They seem to do a good job of
preventing bugs being backported into their stable branch, and have
automated tests.
2) apt-rdepends reports that LyX is not a dependency of anything else.
Updates to LyX shouldn't break anything else, thus no integration
testing required, only testing and review of LyX itself (which upsteam
is the most qualified to do).
3) Each major version of LyX has a new file format, the minor updates
add support for reading documents generated by later versions of LyX.

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
 I could try suggesting on ubuntu-devel-discuss that lyx would be a
 good candidate for more frequent releases. Something like:

i think the real issue is that there is really nobody who cares
about lyx package, not that the info about needed lyx update
is missing. there were many parallel reports about 1.6.5 thing
in ubuntu bugzilla and nobody cares. 

 Ubuntu doesn't officially support packages in universe, but upstream
 developers often support Ubuntu, even adding workarounds to Ubuntu
 specific bugs.

afaik not true.

It is then frustrating for them to get the same bug
 reports over and over since the version in Ubuntu is frozen for six
 months. I suggest that Ubuntu offer to sync packages for certain
 upstream projects upon request from upsteam. LyX would be a good
 candidate:

i guess this goes against their stabilizing policy. again someone
with real power is needed to recognize the critical bug and bumps
new version, i.e. package maintainer.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
 I could try suggesting on ubuntu-devel-discuss that lyx would be a
 good candidate for more frequent releases. Something like:

 i think the real issue is that there is really nobody who cares
 about lyx package, not that the info about needed lyx update
 is missing. there were many parallel reports about 1.6.5 thing
 in ubuntu bugzilla and nobody cares.

Unfortunately that seems to be the same for other packages as well.
Iirc I've have bugs against xserver-xorg rot in launchpad as well,
though I guess not ones with upstream fixes.

 Ubuntu doesn't officially support packages in universe, but upstream
 developers often support Ubuntu, even adding workarounds to Ubuntu
 specific bugs.

 afaik not true.

OK, officially may be the wrong word. Ubuntu basically doesn't support
LyX at all once it is released. I recall that there was a bug in one
particular version of Qt, which was worked around in LyX since it was
in Ubuntu. So afaict LyX does offer some sort of unofficial support
for Ubuntu. If LyX and Ubuntu don't play well together it is more
likely that a fix will come from LyX than Ubuntu, even if the bug is
technically in the Ubuntu core packages.

It is then frustrating for them to get the same bug
 reports over and over since the version in Ubuntu is frozen for six
 months. I suggest that Ubuntu offer to sync packages for certain
 upstream projects upon request from upsteam. LyX would be a good
 candidate:

 i guess this goes against their stabilizing policy. again someone
 with real power is needed to recognize the critical bug and bumps
 new version, i.e. package maintainer.

Possibly we could try to get Rainer recognized as a Per-package
Uploader for LyX, if Rainer wants this. Getting involved in Ubuntu is
reputably easier than Debian. This would involve some collaboration
with an Ubuntu sponsor and an application like the following:
  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AdrianPerez/PerPackageUploaderApplication


-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
 Possibly we could try to get Rainer recognized as a Per-package
 Uploader for LyX, if Rainer wants this. Getting involved in Ubuntu is
 reputably easier than Debian. This would involve some collaboration
 with an Ubuntu sponsor and an application like the following:
   https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AdrianPerez/PerPackageUploaderApplication

yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
whole thing except extremistic solutions like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
devs to stop producing lyx binaries.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
> I have the feeling we are getting somewhere with the creation of the ppa for
> LyX.

side note.

firstly, do you know how the official binaries are prepared for ubuntu.
are they blindly taken from debian or someone compiles the stuff again?

secondly, is it possible to be ubuntu maintainer for a single package like
lyx?

the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
(not well tested qt's && lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
shouldn't be the case.

having somebody within the ubuntu team who cares about lyx packages would be
much more valuable than creating ppas (hint hint!:)

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Fri, Jul 1, 2011 at 11:11 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
> Rainer M Krug wrote:
>> I have the feeling we are getting somewhere with the creation of the ppa for
>> LyX.
>
> side note.
>
> firstly, do you know how the official binaries are prepared for ubuntu.
> are they blindly taken from debian or someone compiles the stuff again?

$ dpkg -l | grep lyx-common
ii  lyx-common  1.6.5-1ubuntu1 Architecture-independent files for LyX

Looks like they compile their own. (Unless Debian distributes packages
with versions like "1.6.5-1ubuntu1" ;).

> secondly, is it possible to be ubuntu maintainer for a single package like
> lyx?

Ubuntu doesn't really have package maintainers. There are really into
doing things as a community ;). There are "Per-package Uploaders"
however, described here: https://wiki.ubuntu.com/UbuntuDevelopers.

> the image ubuntu makes for lyx is bad. they are pushing not well tested
> versions of qt/lyx into repo, but they do not update bugfixing releases
> so user gets unstable lyx at the end. it happened with their last LTS 10.04
> (not well tested qt's && lyx is crashing when outliner is used),
> its happenning again with 11.04 where we just got report that lyx 2.0rc3 is
> configured as prerelease, thus crashing at each instance of assertion which
> shouldn't be the case.
>
> having somebody within the ubuntu team who cares about lyx packages would be
> much more valuable than creating ppas (hint hint!:)

I could try suggesting on ubuntu-devel-discuss that lyx would be a
good candidate for more frequent releases. Something like:

"Ubuntu doesn't officially support packages in universe, but upstream
developers often support Ubuntu, even adding workarounds to Ubuntu
specific bugs. It is then frustrating for them to get the same bug
reports over and over since the version in Ubuntu is frozen for six
months. I suggest that Ubuntu offer to sync packages for certain
upstream projects upon request from upsteam. LyX would be a good
candidate:
1) Development is done on trunk. They seem to do a good job of
preventing bugs being backported into their stable branch, and have
automated tests.
2) apt-rdepends reports that LyX is not a dependency of anything else.
Updates to LyX shouldn't break anything else, thus no integration
testing required, only testing and review of LyX itself (which upsteam
is the most qualified to do).
3) Each major version of LyX has a new file format, the minor updates
add support for reading documents generated by later versions of LyX."

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> I could try suggesting on ubuntu-devel-discuss that lyx would be a
> good candidate for more frequent releases. Something like:

i think the real issue is that there is really nobody who cares
about lyx package, not that the info about needed lyx update
is missing. there were many parallel reports about 1.6.5 thing
in ubuntu bugzilla and nobody cares. 

> "Ubuntu doesn't officially support packages in universe, but upstream
> developers often support Ubuntu, even adding workarounds to Ubuntu
> specific bugs.

afaik not true.

>It is then frustrating for them to get the same bug
> reports over and over since the version in Ubuntu is frozen for six
> months. I suggest that Ubuntu offer to sync packages for certain
> upstream projects upon request from upsteam. LyX would be a good
> candidate:

i guess this goes against their stabilizing policy. again someone
with real power is needed to recognize the critical bug and bumps
new version, i.e. package maintainer.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Sat, Jul 2, 2011 at 2:46 AM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:
> John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
>> I could try suggesting on ubuntu-devel-discuss that lyx would be a
>> good candidate for more frequent releases. Something like:
>
> i think the real issue is that there is really nobody who cares
> about lyx package, not that the info about needed lyx update
> is missing. there were many parallel reports about 1.6.5 thing
> in ubuntu bugzilla and nobody cares.

Unfortunately that seems to be the same for other packages as well.
Iirc I've have bugs against xserver-xorg rot in launchpad as well,
though I guess not ones with upstream fixes.

>> "Ubuntu doesn't officially support packages in universe, but upstream
>> developers often support Ubuntu, even adding workarounds to Ubuntu
>> specific bugs.
>
> afaik not true.

OK, officially may be the wrong word. Ubuntu basically doesn't support
LyX at all once it is released. I recall that there was a bug in one
particular version of Qt, which was worked around in LyX since it was
in Ubuntu. So afaict LyX does offer some sort of unofficial support
for Ubuntu. If LyX and Ubuntu don't play well together it is more
likely that a fix will come from LyX than Ubuntu, even if the bug is
technically in the Ubuntu core packages.

>>It is then frustrating for them to get the same bug
>> reports over and over since the version in Ubuntu is frozen for six
>> months. I suggest that Ubuntu offer to sync packages for certain
>> upstream projects upon request from upsteam. LyX would be a good
>> candidate:
>
> i guess this goes against their stabilizing policy. again someone
> with real power is needed to recognize the critical bug and bumps
> new version, i.e. package maintainer.

Possibly we could try to get Rainer recognized as a Per-package
Uploader for LyX, if Rainer wants this. Getting involved in Ubuntu is
reputably easier than Debian. This would involve some collaboration
with an Ubuntu sponsor and an application like the following:
  https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AdrianPerez/PerPackageUploaderApplication


-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

John McCabe-Dansted wrote:
> Possibly we could try to get Rainer recognized as a Per-package
> Uploader for LyX, if Rainer wants this. Getting involved in Ubuntu is
> reputably easier than Debian. This would involve some collaboration
> with an Ubuntu sponsor and an application like the following:
>   https://wiki.ubuntu.com/AdrianPerez/PerPackageUploaderApplication

yes this was the idea. otherwise i dont believe we can't do much about the
whole thing except extremistic "solutions" like doing ppas and ask ubuntu
devs to stop producing lyx binaries.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Rainer M Krug wrote:
  I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
  adventurous as a daily build trunk user.
 
  So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the trunc
  user as a third category which would mean a third ppa.

 to be frank, except pre-releases stage around beta/rc using daily trunk
 build
 looks crazy idea if you are _user_.


Absolutely - but for developers / early testers, it might be useful.


 pavel




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:59 AM, John McCabe-Dansted gma...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Liviu Andronic landronim...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  In my view release is extraneous here. We could have instead:
  lyx-1.6 (for latest stable 1.6.x release; probably forever 1.6.10)
  lyx (for latest stable release, currently 2.0.0 and soon 2.0.1, while
  in the future it will stand for 2.1.0; this would update the official
  Ubuntu LyX, which is just fine)
  lyx-2.1-alpha (for 2.1 alpha releases)
  lyx-2.1-beta (for 2.1 beta releases)
  lyx-2.1-rc (for 2.1 rc releases)

 LyX-version is more meaningful to me than branch vs trunk.

 Generally, if I upgrade 2.0.0svn as a user it is because there is some
 must have feature in 2.0.0 so I want to adopt 2.0.0 early. Being
 automatically upgraded to 2.1.0svn is annoying because I have files
 appearing that are not compatible with 2.0.x, have to deal with the
 usual regressions relating to trunk, and don't get any new features
 that I actually care about.

 A tester may want to follow trunk-daily, esp. keytest. However,
 testers following branch till 2.0.1 or so may be a good idea anyway;
 there is no real need to automatically switch over to 2.1.0svn the day
 2.0.0 is released. Particularly adventurous users (including keytest)
 often build from source anyway.



OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries:

lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation)

The following installations should be compiled with version suffix to enable
parallel installation:

lyx-a.b --- for the latest stable release of a.b.x -- version suffix a.b
These will stay in the ppa due to compatibility issues.

lyx-a.b-svn --- for daily / regular builds of BANCH_a_b_X  -- version suffix
a.b-svn

lyx-a.b-alpha --- for alpha releases of --- which version suffix?
lyx-a.b-beta --- for beta releases --- which version suffix?
lyx-a.b-rc --- for release candidates --- which version suffix?

All these could go into one ppa (simply named lyx to avoid the stable /
unstable question?)

As mentioned before, the highly unstable (and not at users but at developers
/ early testers aimed) daily trunc build, should go into a separate ppa to
avoid accidental installation from the lyx main ppa.

Does that sound like a reasonable and useful setup?

Rainer


 To bikeshed a little, I'd be more likely to follow a weekly build than
 a daily build. Daily would seem to burn download quota for no real
 benefit, though I guess it does make it much more convenient for when
 developers want to ask does the latest build fix your problem?


 --
 John C. McCabe-Dansted




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries:
 lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation)
 The following installations should be compiled with version suffix to enable
 parallel installation:
 lyx-a.b --- for the latest stable release of a.b.x -- version suffix a.b
 These will stay in the ppa due to compatibility issues.
 lyx-a.b-svn --- for daily / regular builds of BANCH_a_b_X  -- version suffix
 a.b-svn
 lyx-a.b-alpha --- for alpha releases of --- which version suffix?
 lyx-a.b-beta --- for beta releases --- which version suffix?
 lyx-a.b-rc --- for release candidates --- which version suffix?
 All these could go into one ppa (simply named lyx to avoid the stable /
 unstable question?)

Why not the following PPAs: LyX Releases and LyX Daily?


 As mentioned before, the highly unstable (and not at users but at developers
 / early testers aimed) daily trunc build, should go into a separate ppa to
 avoid accidental installation from the lyx main ppa.
 Does that sound like a reasonable and useful setup?

This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code.
We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And
this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But
that's possibly just my preference.

Regards
Liviu

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Liviu Andronic landronim...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com
 wrote:
  OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries:
  lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation)
  The following installations should be compiled with version suffix to
 enable
  parallel installation:
  lyx-a.b --- for the latest stable release of a.b.x -- version suffix a.b
  These will stay in the ppa due to compatibility issues.
  lyx-a.b-svn --- for daily / regular builds of BANCH_a_b_X  -- version
 suffix
  a.b-svn
  lyx-a.b-alpha --- for alpha releases of --- which version suffix?
  lyx-a.b-beta --- for beta releases --- which version suffix?
  lyx-a.b-rc --- for release candidates --- which version suffix?
  All these could go into one ppa (simply named lyx to avoid the stable /
  unstable question?)
 
 Why not the following PPAs: LyX Releases and LyX Daily?


I think that would be the best solution. If there is consent about this
point, I would be happy to implement this.



  As mentioned before, the highly unstable (and not at users but at
 developers
  / early testers aimed) daily trunc build, should go into a separate ppa
 to
  avoid accidental installation from the lyx main ppa.
  Does that sound like a reasonable and useful setup?
 
 This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
 lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
 be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
 contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code.
 We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And
 this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But
 that's possibly just my preference.


I agree with you, but it was stated earlier in this discussion, that
BRANCH_2_0_X is as stable (possibly even more stable) than the actual last
release - so it should not be together with daily-trunc. But I think you are
absolutely right: to put it into the same ppa with the releases, would
indicate an always stable daily build, which it is not. One option would
be to trigger, whenever the BRANCH is considered as stable, a manual build
is triggered (which goes into lyx-release), while the daily buids still go
into lyx-daily. Now the question would be who declares BRANCH as stable for
this stable-branch build?


Cheers,

Rainer



 Regards
 Liviu




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
 lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
 be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
 contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code.
 We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And
 this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But
 that's possibly just my preference.

 I agree with you, but it was stated earlier in this discussion, that
 BRANCH_2_0_X is as stable (possibly even more stable) than the actual last
 release - so it should not be together with daily-trunc. But I think you are
 absolutely right: to put it into the same ppa with the releases, would
 indicate an always stable daily build, which it is not.

Yes, it may be more stable than latest stable, but it might not. There
is a reason that sometimes we have regressions in latest stable
releases.


 One option would
 be to trigger, whenever the BRANCH is considered as stable, a manual build
 is triggered (which goes into lyx-release), while the daily buids still go
 into lyx-daily. Now the question would be who declares BRANCH as stable for
 this stable-branch build?

I don't think we need to go into such an intricate set-up, at least
because providing so many builds is already a boon while providing too
many can get very confusing. The way I see it, branch is considered
stable when we opt for a new stable release. At all costs we don't
want regular pre-releases for the stable branch: it's like releasing
experimental code for our stable code.

I think daily lyx-a.b-svn builds are just fine for the purpose, which
is providing people that are having some sort of nastiness in the
latest stable release with bleeding-edge code of branch that fixes the
issue. This should be the only encouraged use of branch daily builds,
apart from testing.

Cheers
Liviu

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Liviu Andronic landronim...@gmail.comwrote:

 On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
  This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
  lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
  be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
  contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code.
  We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And
  this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But
  that's possibly just my preference.
 
  I agree with you, but it was stated earlier in this discussion, that
  BRANCH_2_0_X is as stable (possibly even more stable) than the actual
 last
  release - so it should not be together with daily-trunc. But I think you
 are
  absolutely right: to put it into the same ppa with the releases, would
  indicate an always stable daily build, which it is not.
 
 Yes, it may be more stable than latest stable, but it might not. There
 is a reason that sometimes we have regressions in latest stable
 releases.


  One option would
  be to trigger, whenever the BRANCH is considered as stable, a manual
 build
  is triggered (which goes into lyx-release), while the daily buids still
 go
  into lyx-daily. Now the question would be who declares BRANCH as stable
 for
  this stable-branch build?
 
 I don't think we need to go into such an intricate set-up, at least
 because providing so many builds is already a boon while providing too
 many can get very confusing. The way I see it, branch is considered
 stable when we opt for a new stable release. At all costs we don't
 want regular pre-releases for the stable branch: it's like releasing
 experimental code for our stable code.


True - it was just an idea to encourage early adopters to have reasonable
stable ideas - but it definitely would be quite a bit more work. I am
perfectly fine without that.


 I think daily lyx-a.b-svn builds are just fine for the purpose, which
 is providing people that are having some sort of nastiness in the
 latest stable release with bleeding-edge code of branch that fixes the
 issue. This should be the only encouraged use of branch daily builds,
 apart from testing.


OK - I am perfectly happy with that setup. I will let you know as soon as
the first builds are available.

Cheers,

Rainer



 Cheers
 Liviu




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:

> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
> > adventurous as a daily build trunk user.
> >
> > So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the trunc
> > user as a third category which would mean a third ppa.
>
> to be frank, except pre-releases stage around beta/rc using daily trunk
> build
> looks crazy idea if you are _user_.
>

Absolutely - but for developers / early testers, it might be useful.

>
> pavel
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:59 AM, John McCabe-Dansted wrote:

> On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Liviu Andronic 
> wrote:
> > In my view "release" is extraneous here. We could have instead:
> > lyx-1.6 (for latest stable 1.6.x release; probably forever 1.6.10)
> > lyx (for latest stable release, currently 2.0.0 and soon 2.0.1, while
> > in the future it will stand for 2.1.0; this would update the official
> > Ubuntu LyX, which is just fine)
> > lyx-2.1-alpha (for 2.1 alpha releases)
> > lyx-2.1-beta (for 2.1 beta releases)
> > lyx-2.1-rc (for 2.1 rc releases)
>
> LyX- is more meaningful to me than branch vs trunk.
>
> Generally, if I upgrade 2.0.0svn as a user it is because there is some
> must have feature in 2.0.0 so I want to adopt 2.0.0 early. Being
> automatically upgraded to 2.1.0svn is annoying because I have files
> appearing that are not compatible with 2.0.x, have to deal with the
> usual regressions relating to trunk, and don't get any new features
> that I actually care about.
>
> A tester may want to follow trunk-daily, esp. keytest. However,
> testers following branch till 2.0.1 or so may be a good idea anyway;
> there is no real need to automatically switch over to 2.1.0svn the day
> 2.0.0 is released. Particularly adventurous users (including keytest)
> often build from source anyway.
>
>
>
OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries:

lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation)

The following installations should be compiled with version suffix to enable
parallel installation:

lyx-a.b --- for the latest stable release of a.b.x -- version suffix a.b
These will stay in the ppa due to compatibility issues.

lyx-a.b-svn --- for daily / regular builds of BANCH_a_b_X  -- version suffix
a.b-svn

lyx-a.b-alpha --- for alpha releases of --- which version suffix?
lyx-a.b-beta --- for beta releases --- which version suffix?
lyx-a.b-rc --- for release candidates --- which version suffix?

All these could go into one ppa (simply named lyx to avoid the stable /
unstable question?)

As mentioned before, the highly unstable (and not at users but at developers
/ early testers aimed) daily trunc build, should go into a separate ppa to
avoid accidental installation from the lyx main ppa.

Does that sound like a reasonable and useful setup?

Rainer


> To bikeshed a little, I'd be more likely to follow a weekly build than
> a daily build. Daily would seem to burn download quota for no real
> benefit, though I guess it does make it much more convenient for when
> developers want to ask "does the latest build fix your problem?"
>
>
> --
> John C. McCabe-Dansted
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries:
> lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation)
> The following installations should be compiled with version suffix to enable
> parallel installation:
> lyx-a.b --- for the latest stable release of a.b.x -- version suffix a.b
> These will stay in the ppa due to compatibility issues.
> lyx-a.b-svn --- for daily / regular builds of BANCH_a_b_X  -- version suffix
> a.b-svn
> lyx-a.b-alpha --- for alpha releases of --- which version suffix?
> lyx-a.b-beta --- for beta releases --- which version suffix?
> lyx-a.b-rc --- for release candidates --- which version suffix?
> All these could go into one ppa (simply named lyx to avoid the stable /
> unstable question?)
>
Why not the following PPAs: LyX Releases and LyX Daily?


> As mentioned before, the highly unstable (and not at users but at developers
> / early testers aimed) daily trunc build, should go into a separate ppa to
> avoid accidental installation from the lyx main ppa.
> Does that sound like a reasonable and useful setup?
>
This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code.
We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And
this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But
that's possibly just my preference.

Regards
Liviu

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:06 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 12:41 PM, Rainer M Krug 
> wrote:
> > OK - I would suggest then the following naming of the binaries:
> > lyx --- latest stable release of lyx (updates the ubuntu installation)
> > The following installations should be compiled with version suffix to
> enable
> > parallel installation:
> > lyx-a.b --- for the latest stable release of a.b.x -- version suffix a.b
> > These will stay in the ppa due to compatibility issues.
> > lyx-a.b-svn --- for daily / regular builds of BANCH_a_b_X  -- version
> suffix
> > a.b-svn
> > lyx-a.b-alpha --- for alpha releases of --- which version suffix?
> > lyx-a.b-beta --- for beta releases --- which version suffix?
> > lyx-a.b-rc --- for release candidates --- which version suffix?
> > All these could go into one ppa (simply named lyx to avoid the stable /
> > unstable question?)
> >
> Why not the following PPAs: LyX Releases and LyX Daily?
>

I think that would be the best solution. If there is consent about this
point, I would be happy to implement this.


>
> > As mentioned before, the highly unstable (and not at users but at
> developers
> > / early testers aimed) daily trunc build, should go into a separate ppa
> to
> > avoid accidental installation from the lyx main ppa.
> > Does that sound like a reasonable and useful setup?
> >
> This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
> lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
> be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
> contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code.
> We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And
> this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But
> that's possibly just my preference.
>

I agree with you, but it was stated earlier in this discussion, that
BRANCH_2_0_X is as stable (possibly even more stable) than the actual last
release - so it should not be together with daily-trunc. But I think you are
absolutely right: to put it into the same ppa with the releases, would
indicate an "always stable" daily build, which it is not. One option would
be to trigger, whenever the BRANCH is considered as stable, a manual build
is triggered (which goes into lyx-release), while the daily buids still go
into lyx-daily. Now the question would be who declares BRANCH as stable for
this stable-branch build?


Cheers,

Rainer



> Regards
> Liviu
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
>> This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
>> lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
>> be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
>> contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code.
>> We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And
>> this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But
>> that's possibly just my preference.
>
> I agree with you, but it was stated earlier in this discussion, that
> BRANCH_2_0_X is as stable (possibly even more stable) than the actual last
> release - so it should not be together with daily-trunc. But I think you are
> absolutely right: to put it into the same ppa with the releases, would
> indicate an "always stable" daily build, which it is not.
>
Yes, it may be more stable than latest stable, but it might not. There
is a reason that sometimes we have regressions in latest stable
releases.


> One option would
> be to trigger, whenever the BRANCH is considered as stable, a manual build
> is triggered (which goes into lyx-release), while the daily buids still go
> into lyx-daily. Now the question would be who declares BRANCH as stable for
> this stable-branch build?
>
I don't think we need to go into such an intricate set-up, at least
because providing so many builds is already a boon while providing too
many can get very confusing. The way I see it, branch is considered
stable when we opt for a new stable release. At all costs we don't
want regular pre-releases for the stable branch: it's like releasing
experimental code for our stable code.

I think daily lyx-a.b-svn builds are just fine for the purpose, which
is providing people that are having some sort of nastiness in the
latest stable release with bleeding-edge code of branch that fixes the
issue. This should be the only encouraged use of branch daily builds,
apart from testing.

Cheers
Liviu

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 4:23 PM, Liviu Andronic wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 28, 2011 at 3:20 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> >> This all makes sense to me. I would only insist in grouping
> >> lyx-a.b-svn with lyx-a.b-trunk. As much as latest branch would usually
> >> be more stable than the latest stable release, the branch could easily
> >> contain nasty regressions: it is still by definition unreleased code.
> >> We wouldn't want to encourage people using lyx-a.b-svn over lyx. And
> >> this way we can have a PPA for daily builds and one for releases. But
> >> that's possibly just my preference.
> >
> > I agree with you, but it was stated earlier in this discussion, that
> > BRANCH_2_0_X is as stable (possibly even more stable) than the actual
> last
> > release - so it should not be together with daily-trunc. But I think you
> are
> > absolutely right: to put it into the same ppa with the releases, would
> > indicate an "always stable" daily build, which it is not.
> >
> Yes, it may be more stable than latest stable, but it might not. There
> is a reason that sometimes we have regressions in latest stable
> releases.
>
>
> > One option would
> > be to trigger, whenever the BRANCH is considered as stable, a manual
> build
> > is triggered (which goes into lyx-release), while the daily buids still
> go
> > into lyx-daily. Now the question would be who declares BRANCH as stable
> for
> > this stable-branch build?
> >
> I don't think we need to go into such an intricate set-up, at least
> because providing so many builds is already a boon while providing too
> many can get very confusing. The way I see it, branch is considered
> stable when we opt for a new stable release. At all costs we don't
> want regular pre-releases for the stable branch: it's like releasing
> experimental code for our stable code.
>

True - it was just an idea to encourage "early adopters" to have reasonable
stable ideas - but it definitely would be quite a bit more work. I am
perfectly fine without that.


> I think daily lyx-a.b-svn builds are just fine for the purpose, which
> is providing people that are having some sort of nastiness in the
> latest stable release with bleeding-edge code of branch that fixes the
> issue. This should be the only encouraged use of branch daily builds,
> apart from testing.
>

OK - I am perfectly happy with that setup. I will let you know as soon as
the first builds are available.

Cheers,

Rainer


>
> Cheers
> Liviu
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
 We will have at least two ppas - namely lyx-daily for daily builds of trunc

please make sure in some description that _trunk_ is not what users want
unless they really know what they are doing.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:

 Rainer M Krug wrote:
  We will have at least two ppas - namely lyx-daily for daily builds of
 trunc

 please make sure in some description that _trunk_ is not what users want
 unless they really know what they are doing.


Definitely - I will stick with the conventions in naming the ppas, i.e.

lyx-daily
lyx-stable

and

lyx-beta

and the descriptions will make clear ehat these are - I wil post the urls
for comments before uploading any debs.

By the way: the codes from trunc and the branch 2.0.x are imported / in the
process of being imported to launchpad.


Rainer


 pavel




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
 lyx-daily
 lyx-stable
 
 and
 
 lyx-beta

The latter should be called lyx-unstable unless it is a real beta release.

Jürgen

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller sp...@lyx.org wrote:

 Rainer M Krug wrote:
  lyx-daily
  lyx-stable
 
  and
 
  lyx-beta

 The latter should be called lyx-unstable unless it is a real beta release.


I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it right),
so:

lyx-daily
 daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
testing purposes -- unstable

lyx-beta
 official released beta versions of lyx. can be considered -- quite
stable

lyx-stable
 releases of lyx (2.0.x, 1.6.9) - others needed as well? --- stable

As I said, I would like to have all versions (1.6.x, 2.0.x, trunk) to be
able to be installed on the same machine without interference. In addition,
there should always be a installation candidate lyx in the stable ppa,
which effectively is always the newest version and installs as lyx without
any version suffix.

Hope this clarifies,

Rainer



 Jürgen




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
 I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it right),
 so:
 
 lyx-daily
  daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and only for
 testing purposes -- unstable
 
 lyx-beta
  official released beta versions of lyx. can be considered -- quite
 stable
 
 lyx-stable
  releases of lyx (2.0.x, 1.6.9) - others needed as well? --- stable

I see. I expected you wanted to differentiate daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X 
(which are supposed to be stable) and trunk.

How about lyx-daily-stable and lyx-daily-unstable?

Jürgen

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 24/06/2011 11:23, Rainer M Krug a écrit :

I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it
right), so:

lyx-daily
  daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
testing purposes -- unstable


I would differentiate the wording for branch. The daily 2.0.x builds are 
at least of beta quality. Most of the time they are an improvement wrt 
lates stable release. And these are the daily builds that we should 
encourage people to use. This is where the ppa would be a great gain for 
us IMO.


JMarc

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:
 there should always be a installation candidate lyx in the stable ppa,
 which effectively is always the newest version and installs as lyx without
 any version suffix.

Would that then clash with the official Ubuntu(tm) LyX package? Would
it be better to have all the ppas have a version suffix?

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
lasgout...@lyx.orgwrote:

 Le 24/06/2011 11:23, Rainer M Krug a écrit :

  I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it
 right), so:

 lyx-daily
  daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
 testing purposes -- unstable


 I would differentiate the wording for branch. The daily 2.0.x builds are at
 least of beta quality. Most of the time they are an improvement wrt lates
 stable release. And these are the daily builds that we should encourage
 people to use. This is where the ppa would be a great gain for us IMO.


Ok. I think this all biols down to the understanding of how stable trunk and
BRANCH_2_0_X is.

So the first question is:

Which binaries do we want to have in ppas? and

How should they be separated into different ppas?

We have the following categories:

- releases
--- alpha
--- beta
--- final (stable)
- daily builds
--- trunk (highly unstable / experimental)
--- BRANCH_2_0_X (unstable but usable)
--- BRANCH_1_6_X (no further maintenance releases? so we might not need this
one any more)

I think it would be useful to have a daily

lyx-daily
lyx-beta
lyx-stable

which can be used for BRANCH_2_0_X and new ones, and we could upload into
stable the latest 1.6 release as well (compiled with version suffix). In
addition, one package simply called lyx, always containing the newest
release, without version suffix. This would ot clash with the ubuntu, but
update it.

But we could have an additional

lyx-daily-trunk

which will have the daily builds of trunk

In this way it would be clear that these are experimental daily builds and
even more unstable then lyx-daily.

Would that make sense?



 JMarc




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
 --- BRANCH_2_0_X (unstable but usable)

As JMarc already noted, that's not true. Apart from expeptions that actually 
should not happen (but can happen even in official stable releases), 
BRANCH_2_0_X is usually even more stable than our official stable releases.

Jürgen

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 24/06/2011 11:52, Rainer M Krug a écrit :

Ok. I think this all biols down to the understanding of how stable trunk
and BRANCH_2_0_X is.

So the first question is:

Which binaries do we want to have in ppas? and


We/you obviously have to decide what ppas are really useful (do adding 
new ones create extra work for you?). A problem we should not forget is 
that having too many ppas may be confusing for users.


Concerning naming, I would propose an explicit separation between daily 
and releases with names like

lyx-daily-(stable|trunk)
lyx-release-(stable|beta|alpha)

There is indeed no need to catter for 1.6 branch. There is only one 
stable branch active at a time.


JMarc

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

Sorry - forgot the reply all

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:04 PM, Rainer M Krug r.m.k...@gmail.com wrote:



 On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:57 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller sp...@lyx.orgwrote:

 Rainer M Krug wrote:
  --- BRANCH_2_0_X (unstable but usable)

 As JMarc already noted, that's not true. Apart from expeptions that
 actually
 should not happen (but can happen even in official stable releases),
 BRANCH_2_0_X is usually even more stable than our official stable
 releases.


 OK - thanks for the clarification.
 So it should read:

 - releases
 --- alpha
 --- beta
 --- final (stable)
 - daily builds
 --- trunk (highly unstable / experimental)
 --- BRANCH_2_0_X (stable)


 Jürgen




 --
 Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
 UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

 Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
 Stellenbosch University
 South Africa

 Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
 Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
 Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

 Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

 email:  rai...@krugs.de

 Skype:  RMkrug




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
lasgout...@lyx.orgwrote:

 Le 24/06/2011 11:52, Rainer M Krug a écrit :

  Ok. I think this all biols down to the understanding of how stable trunk
 and BRANCH_2_0_X is.

 So the first question is:

 Which binaries do we want to have in ppas? and


 We/you obviously have to decide what ppas are really useful (do adding new
 ones create extra work for you?). A problem we should not forget is that
 having too many ppas may be confusing for users.


ppas do not cost anything and are very easy to create. You are absolutely
right - to many ppas are confusing to users, but if we combine to many, it
might be to dangerous for users as well.



 Concerning naming, I would propose an explicit separation between daily and
 releases with names like
 lyx-daily-(stable|trunk)
 lyx-release-(stable|beta|**alpha)


I think one ppa should only hold the official final releases, with version
suffixes, and one lyx, which updates the ubuntu one. This should be the one
for the user who really want's to be on the save side.

One other ppa should have the opposite - the unstable / experimental daily
builds from trunc. This is the ppa for the developer / tester / very
adventorous user and *not* for production use

then there are the beta releases and the daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X -
based on earlier statements, I would actually split them into two ppas, as
betas are more unstable then the daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X - correct? In
addition, betas are releases and should therefore be in a beta ppa.

Concerning naming:

lyx-daily-experimental for daily builds of trunk
lyx-daily-branch for the daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X or the actual active
development branch
lyx-release for stale final releases
lyx-beta for beta releases

Final question is concerning version suffixes:

there should be one version without version suffix in lyx-release, all other
debs in this ppa should have version suffixes to be installable in parallel
on in one system without interference

daily_experimental should have its own suffix, so that updates take place
daily, but installation completely independent of other lyx installations

daily branch - should it have the same suffix to update lyx-release? I think
so

Did I sum up the discussion so far correctly?




 There is indeed no need to catter for 1.6 branch. There is only one stable
 branch active at a time.


OK.


 JMarc




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 24/06/2011 12:22, Rainer M Krug a écrit :


I think one ppa should only hold the official final releases, with
version suffixes, and one lyx, which updates the ubuntu one. This should
be the one for the user who really want's to be on the save side.

One other ppa should have the opposite - the unstable / experimental
daily builds from trunc. This is the ppa for the developer / tester /
very adventorous user and *not* for production use

then there are the beta releases and the daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X -
based on earlier statements, I would actually split them into two ppas,
as betas are more unstable then the daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X -
correct? In addition, betas are releases and should therefore be in a
beta ppa.


I would have (in each ppa, package are sorted by interest)

lyx-stable ppa:
  lyx-2.0 == lyx
  lyx-stable-daily : 2.0.x branch
  lyx-1.6

lyx-devel ppa:
  lyx-beta (maybe merge these two)
  lyx-alpha
  lyx-devel-daily

I am not sure about the naming, but daily builds from the stable branch 
actually belong with real releases. And alpha and beta software (from 
trunk) belongs with development branch.


BTW, why use the terminology daily instead of nightly (just curious)?

JMarc

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 2:06 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgout...@lyx.orgwrote:

 Le 24/06/2011 12:22, Rainer M Krug a écrit :


  I think one ppa should only hold the official final releases, with
 version suffixes, and one lyx, which updates the ubuntu one. This should
 be the one for the user who really want's to be on the save side.

 One other ppa should have the opposite - the unstable / experimental
 daily builds from trunc. This is the ppa for the developer / tester /
 very adventorous user and *not* for production use

 then there are the beta releases and the daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X -
 based on earlier statements, I would actually split them into two ppas,
 as betas are more unstable then the daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X -
 correct? In addition, betas are releases and should therefore be in a
 beta ppa.


 I would have (in each ppa, package are sorted by interest)

 lyx-stable ppa:
  lyx-2.0 == lyx
  lyx-stable-daily : 2.0.x branch
  lyx-1.6

 lyx-devel ppa:
  lyx-beta (maybe merge these two)
  lyx-alpha
  lyx-devel-daily


In this scheme we would be mixing releases with daily builds, which I think
is not a good idea. Also: a beta tester might not be interested in the daily
builds. Especially, I would not mix the daily trunk builds with anything
else more stable - if somebody want's to test the daily trunk, then they
have to install a separate ppa - additional security measure.

What about
1) putting daily trunc builds in own ppa
2) take daily BRANCH_2_0_X builds out of lyx-stable and add to lyx-devel,
together with alpha and betas when available?
3) have a lyx-release ppa with final releases





 I am not sure about the naming, but daily builds from the stable branch
 actually belong with real releases. And alpha and beta software (from trunk)
 belongs with development branch.

 BTW, why use the terminology daily instead of nightly (just curious)?


Because they are build daily? One could also say that thay are based on a
days work...

Rainer



 JMarc




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 24/06/2011 14:26, Rainer M Krug a écrit :

In this scheme we would be mixing releases with daily builds, which I
think is not a good idea. Also: a beta tester might not be interested in
the daily builds. Especially, I would not mix the daily trunk builds
with anything else more stable - if somebody want's to test the daily
trunk, then they have to install a separate ppa - additional security
measure.

What about
1) putting daily trunc builds in own ppa
2) take daily BRANCH_2_0_X builds out of lyx-stable and add to
lyx-devel, together with alpha and betas when available?
3) have a lyx-release ppa with final releases


My problem is to separate two kind of users:

* people who want a version of lyx safe with their documents (lyx 
releases, branch daily builds). This is the ppa we can recommend to 
everybody.


* people who are willing to take risks and want to try new features 
(alpha, beta, trunk).


This distinction is IMO more important than real versions version vs. 
daily.


JMarc

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 3:21 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes lasgout...@lyx.orgwrote:

 Le 24/06/2011 14:26, Rainer M Krug a écrit :

  In this scheme we would be mixing releases with daily builds, which I
 think is not a good idea. Also: a beta tester might not be interested in
 the daily builds. Especially, I would not mix the daily trunk builds
 with anything else more stable - if somebody want's to test the daily
 trunk, then they have to install a separate ppa - additional security
 measure.

 What about
 1) putting daily trunc builds in own ppa
 2) take daily BRANCH_2_0_X builds out of lyx-stable and add to
 lyx-devel, together with alpha and betas when available?
 3) have a lyx-release ppa with final releases


 My problem is to separate two kind of users:

 * people who want a version of lyx safe with their documents (lyx releases,
 branch daily builds). This is the ppa we can recommend to everybody.


OK - if the developers feel comfortable with recommending the use of branch
daily builds, then this makes definitely sense.


 * people who are willing to take risks and want to try new features (alpha,
 beta, trunk).


I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
adventurous as a daily build trunk user.

So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the trunc
user as a third category which would mean a third ppa.

Rainer



 This distinction is IMO more important than real versions version vs.
 daily.

 JMarc




-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 24/06/2011 15:34, Rainer M Krug a écrit :

My problem is to separate two kind of users:

* people who want a version of lyx safe with their documents (lyx
releases, branch daily builds). This is the ppa we can recommend to
everybody.


OK - if the developers feel comfortable with recommending the use of
branch daily builds, then this makes definitely sense.


Yes, this is what Juergen said: branch build usually have less bugs than 
the latest official version. This is due to the very conservative 
approach we have for stable versions.



* people who are willing to take risks and want to try new features
(alpha, beta, trunk).

I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
adventurous as a daily build trunk user.

So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the
trunc user as a third category which would mean a third ppa.


As you prefer. I can live with 2 or 3 ppas.

Do you plan to address multiple ubuntu versions? Is this automatically 
catered for in ubuntu?


JMarc

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

To chip in..


On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 12:00 PM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
lasgout...@lyx.org wrote:
 Concerning naming, I would propose an explicit separation between daily and
 releases with names like
 lyx-daily-(stable|trunk)

This naming scheme seems most intuitive for daily builds. For most
purposes lyx-daily-stable and lyx-daily-trunk (or lyx-daily-unstable)
should suffice.


 lyx-release-(stable|beta|alpha)

In my view release is extraneous here. We could have instead:
lyx-1.6 (for latest stable 1.6.x release; probably forever 1.6.10)
lyx (for latest stable release, currently 2.0.0 and soon 2.0.1, while
in the future it will stand for 2.1.0; this would update the official
Ubuntu LyX, which is just fine)
lyx-2.1-alpha (for 2.1 alpha releases)
lyx-2.1-beta (for 2.1 beta releases)
lyx-2.1-rc (for 2.1 rc releases)

This way we have two PPAs and we clearly distinguish from daily builds
and releases, while in the PPA description we will clearly explain
which binary is intended for daily use, which binary is potentially
stable and which one is clearly dangerous and intended for testing
only.

Mixing lyx-daily-stable and lyx-1.6 or lyx binaries in one PPA makes
little sense to me and seems very confusing.

We could in principle also keep
lyx-1.5 (for latest stable 1.5.x release)
lyx-2.0.0 (for an always accessible release of the current stable
branch, for people who want to avoid regressions in future stable
releases)
lyx-2.0.1 (idem)
lyx-2.0.2 (idem)
etc.

but this can be too much and unnecessary. Cheers
Liviu


 There is indeed no need to catter for 1.6 branch. There is only one stable
 branch active at a time.

 JMarc




-- 
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Richard Heck]

On 06/24/2011 05:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes wrote:
 Le 24/06/2011 11:23, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
 I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it
 right), so:

 lyx-daily
   daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
 testing purposes -- unstable

 I would differentiate the wording for branch. The daily 2.0.x builds
 are at least of beta quality. Most of the time they are an improvement
 wrt lates stable release. And these are the daily builds that we
 should encourage people to use. This is where the ppa would be a great
 gain for us IMO.

I again agree with JMarc about this, though of course bugs can and do
creep into branch. So beta sounds like it reflects what people should
expect, even if it isn't quite accurate.

Richard

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
 I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
 adventurous as a daily build trunk user.
 
 So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the trunc
 user as a third category which would mean a third ppa.

to be frank, except pre-releases stage around beta/rc using daily trunk build
looks crazy idea if you are _user_.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Liviu Andronic]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 6:35 PM, Pavel Sanda sa...@lyx.org wrote:
 Rainer M Krug wrote:
 I just think that a beta tester (even an alpha tester) is not nearly as
 adventurous as a daily build trunk user.

 So if we are talking about types of users, I would possibly add the trunc
 user as a third category which would mean a third ppa.

 to be frank, except pre-releases stage around beta/rc using daily trunk build
 looks crazy idea if you are _user_.

Unless your favourite bug got fixed, or favourite feature implemented. :)
Liviu


 pavel




-- 
Do you know how to read?
http://www.alienetworks.com/srtest.cfm
http://goodies.xfce.org/projects/applications/xfce4-dict#speed-reader
Do you know how to write?
http://garbl.home.comcast.net/~garbl/stylemanual/e.htm#e-mail

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 10:21 PM, Liviu Andronic landronim...@gmail.com wrote:
 In my view release is extraneous here. We could have instead:
 lyx-1.6 (for latest stable 1.6.x release; probably forever 1.6.10)
 lyx (for latest stable release, currently 2.0.0 and soon 2.0.1, while
 in the future it will stand for 2.1.0; this would update the official
 Ubuntu LyX, which is just fine)
 lyx-2.1-alpha (for 2.1 alpha releases)
 lyx-2.1-beta (for 2.1 beta releases)
 lyx-2.1-rc (for 2.1 rc releases)

LyX-version is more meaningful to me than branch vs trunk.

Generally, if I upgrade 2.0.0svn as a user it is because there is some
must have feature in 2.0.0 so I want to adopt 2.0.0 early. Being
automatically upgraded to 2.1.0svn is annoying because I have files
appearing that are not compatible with 2.0.x, have to deal with the
usual regressions relating to trunk, and don't get any new features
that I actually care about.

A tester may want to follow trunk-daily, esp. keytest. However,
testers following branch till 2.0.1 or so may be a good idea anyway;
there is no real need to automatically switch over to 2.1.0svn the day
2.0.0 is released. Particularly adventurous users (including keytest)
often build from source anyway.


To bikeshed a little, I'd be more likely to follow a weekly build than
a daily build. Daily would seem to burn download quota for no real
benefit, though I guess it does make it much more convenient for when
developers want to ask does the latest build fix your problem?


-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Pavel Sanda]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
> We will have at least two ppas - namely lyx-daily for daily builds of trunc

please make sure in some description that _trunk_ is not what users want
unless they really know what they are doing.

pavel

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 9:31 AM, Pavel Sanda  wrote:

> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > We will have at least two ppas - namely lyx-daily for daily builds of
> trunc
>
> please make sure in some description that _trunk_ is not what users want
> unless they really know what they are doing.
>

Definitely - I will stick with the conventions in naming the ppas, i.e.

lyx-daily
lyx-stable

and

lyx-beta

and the descriptions will make clear ehat these are - I wil post the urls
for comments before uploading any debs.

By the way: the codes from trunc and the branch 2.0.x are imported / in the
process of being imported to launchpad.


Rainer

>
> pavel
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
> lyx-daily
> lyx-stable
> 
> and
> 
> lyx-beta

The latter should be called lyx-unstable unless it is a real beta release.

Jürgen

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:10 AM, Jürgen Spitzmüller  wrote:

> Rainer M Krug wrote:
> > lyx-daily
> > lyx-stable
> >
> > and
> >
> > lyx-beta
>
> The latter should be called lyx-unstable unless it is a real beta release.
>

I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it right),
so:

lyx-daily
 daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
testing purposes -- unstable

lyx-beta
 official released beta versions of lyx. can be considered -- quite
stable

lyx-stable
 releases of lyx (2.0.x, 1.6.9) - others needed as well? --- stable

As I said, I would like to have all versions (1.6.x, 2.0.x, trunk) to be
able to be installed on the same machine without interference. In addition,
there should always be a installation candidate "lyx" in the stable ppa,
which effectively is always the newest version and installs as lyx without
any version suffix.

Hope this clarifies,

Rainer



> Jürgen
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jürgen Spitzmüller]

Rainer M Krug wrote:
> I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it right),
> so:
> 
> lyx-daily
>  daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and only for
> testing purposes -- unstable
> 
> lyx-beta
>  official released beta versions of lyx. can be considered -- quite
> stable
> 
> lyx-stable
>  releases of lyx (2.0.x, 1.6.9) - others needed as well? --- stable

I see. I expected you wanted to differentiate daily builds of BRANCH_2_0_X 
(which are supposed to be "stable") and trunk.

How about lyx-daily-stable and lyx-daily-unstable?

Jürgen

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Jean-Marc Lasgouttes]

Le 24/06/2011 11:23, Rainer M Krug a écrit :

I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it
right), so:

lyx-daily
  daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
testing purposes -- unstable


I would differentiate the wording for branch. The daily 2.0.x builds are 
at least of beta quality. Most of the time they are an improvement wrt 
lates stable release. And these are the daily builds that we should 
encourage people to use. This is where the ppa would be a great gain for 
us IMO.


JMarc

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[John McCabe-Dansted]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 5:23 PM, Rainer M Krug  wrote:
> there should always be a installation candidate "lyx" in the stable ppa,
> which effectively is always the newest version and installs as lyx without
> any version suffix.

Would that then clash with the official Ubuntu(tm) LyX package? Would
it be better to have all the ppas have a version suffix?

-- 
John C. McCabe-Dansted

Re: LyX daily build and 2.0.x ppa

[Rainer M Krug]

On Fri, Jun 24, 2011 at 11:38 AM, Jean-Marc Lasgouttes
wrote:

> Le 24/06/2011 11:23, Rainer M Krug a écrit :
>
>  I am sticking here with the mozilla  terminology (I hope I get it
>> right), so:
>>
>> lyx-daily
>>  daily builds of trunk and 2.0.x - highly unstable and *only* for
>> testing purposes -- unstable
>>
>
> I would differentiate the wording for branch. The daily 2.0.x builds are at
> least of beta quality. Most of the time they are an improvement wrt lates
> stable release. And these are the daily builds that we should encourage
> people to use. This is where the ppa would be a great gain for us IMO.
>

Ok. I think this all biols down to the understanding of how stable trunk and
BRANCH_2_0_X is.

So the first question is:

Which binaries do we want to have in ppas? and

How should they be separated into different ppas?

We have the following categories:

- releases
--- alpha
--- beta
--- final (stable)
- daily builds
--- trunk (highly unstable / experimental)
--- BRANCH_2_0_X (unstable but usable)
--- BRANCH_1_6_X (no further maintenance releases? so we might not need this
one any more)

I think it would be useful to have a daily

lyx-daily
lyx-beta
lyx-stable

which can be used for BRANCH_2_0_X and new ones, and we could upload into
stable the latest 1.6 release as well (compiled with version suffix). In
addition, one package simply called lyx, always containing the newest
release, without version suffix. This would ot clash with the ubuntu, but
update it.

But we could have an additional

lyx-daily-trunk

which will have the daily builds of trunk

In this way it would be clear that these are experimental daily builds and
even more unstable then lyx-daily.

Would that make sense?



> JMarc
>



-- 
Rainer M. Krug, PhD (Conservation Ecology, SUN), MSc (Conservation Biology,
UCT), Dipl. Phys. (Germany)

Centre of Excellence for Invasion Biology
Stellenbosch University
South Africa

Tel :   +33 - (0)9 53 10 27 44
Cell:   +33 - (0)6 85 62 59 98
Fax (F):   +33 - (0)9 58 10 27 44

Fax (D):+49 - (0)3 21 21 25 22 44

email:  rai...@krugs.de

Skype:  RMkrug