Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-03 Thread Ben Finney
Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org writes:

 Just drop that blender thing and announce this loudly enough,
 preferrably by coordinating with other distro maintainers. That will
 eventually trigger a fork from people who have a more collaborative
 way of thinking.

This coordination would probably best be done via
URL:http://lists.freedesktop.org/mailman/listinfo/distributions the
Freedesktop Distributions collaboration forum.

-- 
 \   “[W]hoever is able to make you absurd is able to make you |
  `\unjust.” —Voltaire |
_o__)  |
Ben Finney


pgpueMipl1kGF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-03 Thread Hendrik Sattler

Zitat von Christian Perrier bubu...@debian.org:


Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):


4) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19895

Patch to add support for system-wide FTGL. I kind of get flamed for
thinking about using something else than what blender provides. And
who cares about shared libraries anyway, they are dangerous. If you
want to have a good idea of what blender folks think about being
distributed, you want to read that thread.



That one shows the problem clearly enough. Blender folks are not
interested in using system-wide libs *at all*. They apparently prefer
using their own private (and buggySam made the point very clear)
version of a library, on the vague assumption that, as libraries
change their API without warning, they're bad.

I'm anything but a specialist in this area, but my understanding is
that this is what sonames are about..:-). Anyway, in 2009, such
reasoning isawfully flawed.

Just drop that blender thing and announce this loudly enough,
preferrably by coordinating with other distro maintainers. That will
eventually trigger a fork from people who have a more collaborative
way of thinking. After all, to my understanding, this blender stuff is
kinda widely used in 3D modelling, right?


I read that discussion in a different tone as it mostly refers to the  
FTGL thing. They made changes to the library that are needed and  
blender would not work correctly without those.
The patch doesn't ensure that the system version of that library  
includes those changes, it doesn't even check for known good versions.  
This was the main complaint especially since there is no release of  
FTGL with those changes, yet! So they cannot expect for everyone (and  
there are other distributions, too) to use _unreleased_ versions of a  
library (release candidates are not a release).
Together, these are valid points for linking a private copy that was  
tested against. They didn't say anything against having to update that  
copy.


Additionally, not all upstream library developers are aware of how  
SONAMEs are to be handled (and maybe they got burned by this before).
Maybe because libtool's description of SONAMEs is way to complicated  
(what insane person wrote this?) and limited, and because other  
popular systems don't support this.
After all, users only see bugs in the frontend, not in the libraries  
behind it.
And there are lots of other projects, too, that include private copies  
of libraries (e.g. mplayer). This was even the proposed way for some  
GNU stuff some time ago!


HS



--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-03 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Cyril Brulebois k...@debian.org [2009.08.02.2130 +0200]:
 Before going deeper into it, I have to say I've been trying to
 resist the urge of going public with it, and coping with my duties
 as much as I could. But it's just too much now. Members of the
 French Cabal (which of course doesn't exist) can tell you how I've
 been made *angry* about the current state of that piece of “free
 software”.

As I understand it, upstream is uncooperative, and others have
already hinted at distributi...@freedesktop, which I second. Someone
has also mentioned vcs-pkg, which is why I'd like to take the
opportunity to clarify its goal:

Without doubt, upstream should be the place where cross-distro
integration happens. However, if upstream is not interested, then
the idea of vcs-pkg is to have a repo used by all distros, which is
suitable for everyone. It doesn't matter where this repo will be
hosted, but I think in the long run, vcs-pkg.org or maybe
distrodev.org should have storage for those. vcs-pkg.org is on
alioth, but non-Debian people might not like being -guests.

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft madd...@d.o  Related projects:
: :'  :  proud Debian developer   http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
a friend is someone with whom
you can dare to be yourself


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)


Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-03 Thread Maximiliano Curia
Hola martin f krafft!

El 03/08/2009 a las 10:48 escribiste:
 Without doubt, upstream should be the place where cross-distro
 integration happens. However, if upstream is not interested, then
 the idea of vcs-pkg is to have a repo used by all distros, which is
 suitable for everyone. It doesn't matter where this repo will be
 hosted, but I think in the long run, vcs-pkg.org or maybe
 distrodev.org should have storage for those. vcs-pkg.org is on
 alioth, but non-Debian people might not like being -guests.

distrodev.org seems to have died sometime around 2007, do you know if there is
any replacement for this?

-- 
recursividad 95, 154, 156, 201, 224, 293 
-- El Lenguaje de Programacion C, pag. 293 (Kernighan  Ritchie)
Saludos /\/\ /\  `/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-03 Thread Cyril Brulebois
o,

so people noticed this discussion and brought it up on #blendercoders,
where I just had a tiny chat. It looks like they agreed that the ffmpeg
situation is quite unfortunate (that's the most problematic external
embedded library we both could think of), but there are some technical
stuff that kind-of justifies that (testing and debugging under Windows
seems to be uneasy because of ffmpeg's policy/compiler support).

From a security point of view, it was reaffirmed that it really isn't
the priority, but patches might be considered as time permits. I guess
that's where having some cross-distro effort would help sharing patches
pending their possible inclusion upstream, and I might set this up (I
already have a few persons from various distributions in head).

Bottom-line: provided a solution to the ffmpeg issue is found, I might
be feasible to keep on maintaining it. I guess I'm just going to move
from 2.49 to 2.49a for the time being, and possibly set up some
autobuilders to help find build issues early, thus sustaining the
upstream effort.

Thanks all for your feedback.

Mraw,
KiBi.


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-03 Thread martin f krafft
also sprach Maximiliano Curia m...@debian.org [2009.08.03.1529 +0200]:
 distrodev.org seems to have died sometime around 2007, do you know
 if there is any replacement for this?

No, but maybe we can revive it? Would you write to the domain owner?

-- 
 .''`.   martin f. krafft madd...@d.o  Related projects:
: :'  :  proud Debian developer   http://debiansystem.info
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduckhttp://vcs-pkg.org
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
 
for her, the dashed lines on the freeway were like grains of sand
 slipping, through an hour glass, ticking away the seconds, the
 minutes, and the hours of her life. if she got home a few minutes
 early on any given afternoon, it gave her a thrill as if she had
 stolen a little something back from death.
-- mc 900 ft jesus (http://www.theendoftheworld.org/900/spider1.shtml)


digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)


Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-03 Thread Paul Wise
On Mon, Aug 3, 2009 at 9:07 PM, martin f krafftmadd...@debian.org wrote:

 No, but maybe we can revive it? Would you write to the domain owner?

It is now a spam site so that may be costly or impossible.

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-02 Thread Christian Perrier
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):

 So: what should I do? I'm thinking about orphaning the package as a
 first step, and if nobody takes care of it as much as it is needed,
 just remove it from the distribution. Packaging would still be
 available in a git repository, so if someone sometime picks it up,
 it should be quite easy not to start from scratch again.


I would personnally ask for it to be removed from the archive
(assuming that's easily feasible witouht breakign anything else). A
non-cooperative upstream wrt distribution and integration is a no-no
and you'll waste too much valuable time in maintaining that package.

Of course, being the arse that I am, I would *also* craft a mail to
upstream mailing lists with a careful explanation about the reasons
leading to the package being abandoned. Something like Debian stops
distributing Blender! as cooperation is impossible to make it fit
within a distro. Coordinating this with Ubuntu would even have more
power...



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-02 Thread Maximiliano Curia
Hola Cyril Brulebois!

El 01/08/2009 a las 22:40 escribiste:
 So: what should I do? I'm thinking about orphaning the package as a
 first step, and if nobody takes care of it as much as it is needed,
 just remove it from the distribution. Packaging would still be
 available in a git repository, so if someone sometime picks it up,
 it should be quite easy not to start from scratch again.

Given the points you listed before, its understandable if you prefer to dedicate
your time to any other activity and orphan blender. Although, it might be
interesting to work together with the maintainers of other distros to maintain
a set of common patches to improve the integration of blender and linux
distros.

I think that the project http://vcs-pkg.org/ could fit nicelly in this case,
that is, if you still want to spend your time with blender, of course.

-- 
UNIX is basically a simple operating system, but you have to be a genius to
understand the simplicity. -- Dennis Ritchie
Saludos /\/\ /\  `/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org



Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-02 Thread Cyril Brulebois
(I hope a single reply will also address Paul's and Christian's
questions.)

Maximiliano Curia m...@debian.org (02/08/2009):
 Hola Cyril Brulebois!

Hola! (KiBi or Cyril would be sufficient. ;))

 Given the points you listed before, its understandable if you prefer
 to dedicate your time to any other activity and orphan blender.
 Although, it might be interesting to work together with the
 maintainers of other distros to maintain a set of common patches to
 improve the integration of blender and linux distros.

Sure. Thanks to the “whohas” utility Paul kindly pointed me to, I've
just looked at what other distros do. A very quick summary can be found
below. In order to answer more deeply to your point, see the 6th item
below.

 I think that the project http://vcs-pkg.org/ could fit nicelly in this
 case, that is, if you still want to spend your time with blender, of
 course.

Thought of that back then, indeed.


Before going deeper into it, I have to say I've been trying to resist
the urge of going public with it, and coping with my duties as much as I
could. But it's just too much now. Members of the French Cabal (which of
course doesn't exist) can tell you how I've been made *angry* about the
current state of that piece of “free software”.


Blender status across distributions:


Following Paul's advice, gave “whohas blender” a try. The following
comments are based on what I saw by following the links. Please note the
one I'm most familiar with is Ubuntu through the diff that appears on
the PTS and patches that are sent to the maintainer/BTS, so I might be
missing obvious things or misunderstanding how that works.

Ubuntu:
---
The package comes from Debian with some tweaks for python 2.6 or
tweaking for some build-dependencies (header location, etc.).

Fedora (F11):
-
They strip some libraries too:
| pushd extern
| #Removed because of ip
|   rm -rf ffmpeg libmp3lame x264 xvidcore
| #Removed because we can expect to use system one
|   rm -rf fftw glew libopenjpeg ode qhull make verse
| #Will have to be removed later: bFTGL

Arch Linux:
---
They seem to download builds from:
http://video.blendertestbuilds.de/download.blender.org/release/
and tweak some files. Granted, that's a binary distribution.

OpenSUSE:
-
I could only see the contents of the package, one can notice something I
forgot to mention: /usr/lib/blender/.blender/**

Indeed, people are expected to unpack blender in home directory and run
it there, with all of libraries, data, scripts, etc. in the .blender
folder. Last time I checked, it looked like the next release should be
able to handle several search paths, though. One can have a look at the
symlink dance in the /usr/bin/blender script on Debian, which is a
wrapper around /usr/bin/blender-bin for this very reason.

FreeBSD:

They seem to have the same kind of patches as Debian has, make it
possible to use system-wide libraries.

Gentoo:
---
They seem to build without tweaking anything related to embedded
libraries.


My (very own) experience with sending patches upstream:
===

Again, I didn't follow very closely what happened last months, but I've
been asked to report how my bugs were received. Let's look.

1) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19383

Asking for pointers to implement HPC-friendly option. No answer.


2) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19825

Various build-related remarks. Bottom-line: until everyone has that
version of scons, use an old one. (Not quite they do for embedded
libraries, but oh well.)


3) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19894

Compiler warnings, valid bug, no answer on the list, but fix committed
in svn. (I used to follow blender using git-svn, and saw my name
there.)


4) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19895

Patch to add support for system-wide FTGL. I kind of get flamed for
thinking about using something else than what blender provides. And
who cares about shared libraries anyway, they are dangerous. If you
want to have a good idea of what blender folks think about being
distributed, you want to read that thread.


5) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19900

Tiny question about syntax warning/error. IIRC Debian was frozen, and
I was looking for a minimal patch instead of grabbing the whole new
file in svn, or trying to craft a possibly-broken patch. No answer
here, but got an answer in private by the author, though.


6) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19906

My favorite one. Where to discuss possible security issues? No answer
at all. Back then, I thought about setting up a cross-distro effort,
but well, is it really worth it?


7) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19931

Not a thread I started, but Fedora folks wanting to get some feedback
about a Debian patch for a 

Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-02 Thread Christian Perrier
Quoting Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org):

 4) http://article.gmane.org/gmane.comp.video.blender.devel/19895
 
 Patch to add support for system-wide FTGL. I kind of get flamed for
 thinking about using something else than what blender provides. And
 who cares about shared libraries anyway, they are dangerous. If you
 want to have a good idea of what blender folks think about being
 distributed, you want to read that thread.


That one shows the problem clearly enough. Blender folks are not
interested in using system-wide libs *at all*. They apparently prefer
using their own private (and buggySam made the point very clear)
version of a library, on the vague assumption that, as libraries
change their API without warning, they're bad.

I'm anything but a specialist in this area, but my understanding is
that this is what sonames are about..:-). Anyway, in 2009, such
reasoning isawfully flawed. 

Just drop that blender thing and announce this loudly enough,
preferrably by coordinating with other distro maintainers. That will
eventually trigger a fork from people who have a more collaborative
way of thinking. After all, to my understanding, this blender stuff is
kinda widely used in 3D modelling, right?



signature.asc
Description: Digital signature


Re: What to do with (packages like) Blender?

2009-08-01 Thread Paul Wise
On Sat, Aug 1, 2009 at 10:40 PM, Cyril Bruleboisk...@debian.org wrote:

 It's been a while and I'm now really wondering what to do with
 Blender. So that everyone can understand, I'm going to try and sum up
 what I'm facing. Please note it's not intended to be a rant, rather a
 summary of what I've to deal with.

Has upstream been receptive to patches you sent? I would personally
lean towards removing it from Debian even though some Debian users may
riot. Perhaps they will riot in the direction of upstream and thus
bring some sanity to the situation that hasn't yet been achieved.
Unfortunately that means no Yo Frankie! in Debian (which has problems
of its own).

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org