State of shiny-server
shiny-server has been mentioned as a potential covid-19 related package [0], though it isn't on the current hackathon list [4]. There is a packaging attempt in science-team Salsa (but no formal ITP) from early 2018. Discussion at the time suggests it builds but possibly doesn't work [1], and was abandoned because neither the science team nor the Javascript team wanted to take responsibility for its Javascript dependencies [2-3]. It appears to have 9 such dependencies that are not already packaged, plus some that are but in the wrong version: see list below. [0] https://salsa.debian.org/blends-team/med/-/blob/master/tasks/covid-19#L80 [1] https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2018/01/msg00141.html [2] https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2018/02/msg00095.html [3] https://lists.debian.org/debian-science/2018/09/msg00036.html [4] https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/community/2020-covid19-hackathon/-/wikis/COVID-19-Hackathon-packages-needing-work $ npm2deb depends -r https://github.com/rstudio/shiny-server/raw/master/package.json # plus manual editing Dependencies: NPM Debian shiny-server (1.5.13)None ├─ bash (0.0.1) None ├─ client-sessions (^0.8.0) None (RFP #896975) │ └─ cookies (^0.7.0) node-cookies (0.8.0-2) ├─ compression (^1.7.4) node-compression (1.7.4-2) ├─ express (^4.16.4) node-express (4.17.1-2) ├─ faye-websocket (^0.11.3) too old node-faye-websocket (0.11.1-1) ├─ graceful-fs (^4.1.15) node-graceful-fs (4.2.3-2) ├─ handlebars (^4.5.3) node-handlebars (3:4.7.2-1) ├─ http-proxy (^1.17.0) None (RFP #896978) │ ├─ eventemitter3 (^4.0.0) None │ ├─ follow-redirects (^1.0.0) node-follow-redirects (1.2.4-1) │ └─ requires-port (^1.0.0) node-requires-port (1.0.0-1) ├─ ip-address (^5.9.0) None │ ├─ jsbn (1.1.0) node-jsbn (1.1.0-1) │ ├─ lodash.find (4.6.0)node-lodash (4.17.15+dfsg-2) │ ├─ lodash.max (4.0.1) node-lodash (4.17.15+dfsg-2) │ ├─ lodash.merge (4.6.2) node-lodash (4.17.15+dfsg-2) │ ├─ lodash.padstart (4.6.1)node-lodash (4.17.15+dfsg-2) │ ├─ lodash.repeat (4.1.0) node-lodash (4.17.15+dfsg-2) │ └─ sprintf-js (1.1.2) node-sprintf-js (1.1.2+ds1-1) ├─ log4js (^4.1.1) node-log4js (6.1.0-1) ├─ moment (^2.24.0) node-moment (2.24.0+ds-2) ├─ morgan (^1.9.1) None │ ├─ basic-auth (~2.0.1)None │ │ └─ safe-buffer (5.1.2) node-safe-buffer (5.2.0-1) │ ├─ debug (2.6.9) too new node-debug (4.1.1-2) │ ├─ depd (~2.0.0) node-depd (2.0.0-1) │ ├─ on-finished (~2.3.0) node-on-finished (2.3.0-1) │ └─ on-headers (~1.0.2)node-on-headers (1.0.2-1) ├─ nan (^2.14.0) node-nan (2.14.0-1) ├─ optimist (0.6.1) node-optimist (0.6.1-1) ├─ pause (0.1.0) None ├─ q (^1.5.1)node-q (1.5.1-2) ├─ qs (^6.7.0) node-qs (6.9.1+ds-1) ├─ send (^0.17.0)node-send (0.17.1-2) ├─ shiny-server-client (https://github.com/rstudio/shiny-server-client/archive/fb1aef1.tar.gz)node-shiny-server-client (1.0.0+git20180820.eba5e90+dfsg-2) ├─ sockjs (^0.3.19) too old sockjs-client (0.3.4+dfsg-2) │ ├─ faye-websocket (^0.10.0) node-faye-websocket (0.11.1-1) │ ├─ uuid (^3.4.0) node-uuid (3.3.2-2) │ └─ websocket-driver (0.6.5) too old node-websocket-driver (0.3.5-1) ├─ split (^1.0.1)too old node-split (1.0.0-1) ├─ stable (^0.1.8) None (see below) └─ underscore (^1.9.1) underscore (1.9.1~dfsg-1) Build dependencies: NPM Debian mocha (^6.1.4) too new node-mocha (7.0.1+ds1-2) rewire (^4.0.1) None should (^13.2.3) should.js (13.2.3~dfsg-3) sinon (^7.3.2) too new node-sinon (9.0.1+ds-1) Warnings occurred: [warning] stable: stable is included in node-svgo. Package it separately and remove it from node-svgo if you need it for another module.
Re: State of shiny-server packaging
On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 09:17:59PM +0200, Philip Rinn wrote: > Hi Andreas, > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 20:49:47 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 05:25:41PM +0200, Philip Rinn wrote: > >> > personally I can add myself as Uploaders and take over ownership of the > >> > ITP/RFPs. I think the latter will be automagically turned into RFPs so > >> > there is not really any work needed. > >> please take ownership of the ITP/RFP bugs. > > > >From my point of view its sufficient if those bugs stay as they are and > > someone who is informed about the status (for instance due to this > > thread) that anybody is kindly invited to close that ITP. I do not feel > > my time productively spent in maintaining these bug metadata and just > > grab another RC bug meanwhile. > > Uh, I'm confused. Taking ownership of the ITP is what you said you'd do if I > want > (see just some lines above). Yes: "I think the latter will be automagically turned into RFPs so there is not really any work needed." I think in this *special* case this ownership is not really important. If you enjoy fiddling around with those metadata just feel free. The sentence before what I quoted now was rather "mentally" than "technically" - sorry for confusion. > Anyway, shiny-server-client[1] is ready for upload > (modulo compat and standards bumps). OK, and probably also change of Uploader if I understood you correctly? Thanks for your work on this Andreas. > [1] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/node-shiny-server-client -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: State of shiny-server packaging
Hi Andreas, On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 20:49:47 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 05:25:41PM +0200, Philip Rinn wrote: >> > Please do not RM existing stuff. If you want to get rid of that package >> > personally I can add myself as Uploaders and take over ownership of the >> > ITP/RFPs. I think the latter will be automagically turned into RFPs so >> > there is not really any work needed. >> >> Yes, please add yourself to Uploders of node-pinkyswear (and remove myself) > > Done in upload of node-pinkyswear_2.2.3+dfsg-2. Thanks. >> please take ownership of the ITP/RFP bugs. > >>From my point of view its sufficient if those bugs stay as they are and > someone who is informed about the status (for instance due to this > thread) that anybody is kindly invited to close that ITP. I do not feel > my time productively spent in maintaining these bug metadata and just > grab another RC bug meanwhile. Uh, I'm confused. Taking ownership of the ITP is what you said you'd do if I want (see just some lines above). Anyway, shiny-server-client[1] is ready for upload (modulo compat and standards bumps). Best, Philip [1] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/node-shiny-server-client
Re: State of shiny-server packaging
Hi Philip, On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 05:25:41PM +0200, Philip Rinn wrote: > > Please do not RM existing stuff. If you want to get rid of that package > > personally I can add myself as Uploaders and take over ownership of the > > ITP/RFPs. I think the latter will be automagically turned into RFPs so > > there is not really any work needed. > > Yes, please add yourself to Uploders of node-pinkyswear (and remove myself) Done in upload of node-pinkyswear_2.2.3+dfsg-2. > please take ownership of the ITP/RFP bugs. >From my point of view its sufficient if those bugs stay as they are and someone who is informed about the status (for instance due to this thread) that anybody is kindly invited to close that ITP. I do not feel my time productively spent in maintaining these bug metadata and just grab another RC bug meanwhile. > Thanks for taking care of shiny-server (and so many other packages)! You are welcome Andreas. > >> [1] https://www.shinyproxy.io > >> [2] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/shiny-server/wikis/Packaging-ToDo > > -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: State of shiny-server packaging
Hi Andreas, On Mon, Sep 17, 2018 at 11:52:10 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi Philip, > > On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 06:57:22PM +0200, Philip Rinn wrote: >> the packaging effort for shiny-server stalled some month ago. I totally lost >> interest in packaging it as I now use shinyproxy[1] at $work. > > There is interest remaining here (local users and I was asked by Debian > friends). > >> As we are heading towards the freeze, I think it's time to discuss how to >> proceed. >> Getting shiny-server into Debian is still a lot of work, see [2]. Actually >> only >> one out of 13 nodejs packages that need to be packaged hit the archive. > > Yes. > >> Is anyone willing to step in and finish the work? Andreas, are you still >> interested? > > I admit there are lots of existing packages with open RC bugs and I simply > have > not found the time to do anything in this direction. > >> If no one steps in until end of October I'll file a RM bug for >> node-pinkyswear and >> close the ITP/RFP bugs that are listed in [2]. > > Please do not RM existing stuff. If you want to get rid of that package > personally I can add myself as Uploaders and take over ownership of the > ITP/RFPs. I think the latter will be automagically turned into RFPs so > there is not really any work needed. Yes, please add yourself to Uploders of node-pinkyswear (and remove myself) and please take ownership of the ITP/RFP bugs. Thanks for taking care of shiny-server (and so many other packages)! Best, Philip >> [1] https://www.shinyproxy.io >> [2] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/shiny-server/wikis/Packaging-ToDo signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: State of shiny-server packaging
Hi Philip, On Sun, Sep 16, 2018 at 06:57:22PM +0200, Philip Rinn wrote: > the packaging effort for shiny-server stalled some month ago. I totally lost > interest in packaging it as I now use shinyproxy[1] at $work. There is interest remaining here (local users and I was asked by Debian friends). > As we are heading towards the freeze, I think it's time to discuss how to > proceed. > Getting shiny-server into Debian is still a lot of work, see [2]. Actually > only > one out of 13 nodejs packages that need to be packaged hit the archive. Yes. > Is anyone willing to step in and finish the work? Andreas, are you still > interested? I admit there are lots of existing packages with open RC bugs and I simply have not found the time to do anything in this direction. > If no one steps in until end of October I'll file a RM bug for > node-pinkyswear and > close the ITP/RFP bugs that are listed in [2]. Please do not RM existing stuff. If you want to get rid of that package personally I can add myself as Uploaders and take over ownership of the ITP/RFPs. I think the latter will be automagically turned into RFPs so there is not really any work needed. Thanks for your initial work and as well for this ping. Kind regards Andreas. > [1] https://www.shinyproxy.io > [2] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/shiny-server/wikis/Packaging-ToDo -- http://fam-tille.de
Re: State of shiny-server packaging
On 16.09.18 at 20:31, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > [...] > Yes. Not everything that exists in open source land needs to be in Debian. > > Some things are simply hard to package. Just how Tobias et al bundled Shiny > in their (competing, but also both free-as-in-beer + commercially supported) > shinyproxy (which I do understand is awesome for larger deployments) so have To avoid misinterpretation, shinyproxy is Open Source, not just free-as-in-beer: https://github.com/openanalytics/shinyproxy But it's true, there are more alternatives to shiny-server than just shinyproxy which might be a little complex for smaller deployments. Best, Philip signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
Re: State of shiny-server packaging
On 16 September 2018 at 18:57, Philip Rinn wrote: | the packaging effort for shiny-server stalled some month ago. I totally lost | interest in packaging it as I now use shinyproxy[1] at $work. | | As we are heading towards the freeze, I think it's time to discuss how to proceed. | Getting shiny-server into Debian is still a lot of work, see [2]. Actually only | one out of 13 nodejs packages that need to be packaged hit the archive. | | Is anyone willing to step in and finish the work? Andreas, are you still interested? | | If no one steps in until end of October I'll file a RM bug for node-pinkyswear and | close the ITP/RFP bugs that are listed in [2]. Yes. Not everything that exists in open source land needs to be in Debian. Some things are simply hard to package. Just how Tobias et al bundled Shiny in their (competing, but also both free-as-in-beer + commercially supported) shinyproxy (which I do understand is awesome for larger deployments) so have we bundled Shiny inside the (Docker-based) Rocker Project [3] and A TON of people just use those containers. Has the side benefit that we were actually granted permission to distribute shiny therein. Otherwise one can just do what I usually do and just install the provided .deb of shiny-server. Dirk [3] https://www.rocker-project.org/ | Best, | Philip | | | [1] https://www.shinyproxy.io | [2] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/shiny-server/wikis/Packaging-ToDo | | x[DELETED ATTACHMENT signature.asc, application/pgp-signature] -- http://dirk.eddelbuettel.com | @eddelbuettel | e...@debian.org
State of shiny-server packaging
Hi, the packaging effort for shiny-server stalled some month ago. I totally lost interest in packaging it as I now use shinyproxy[1] at $work. As we are heading towards the freeze, I think it's time to discuss how to proceed. Getting shiny-server into Debian is still a lot of work, see [2]. Actually only one out of 13 nodejs packages that need to be packaged hit the archive. Is anyone willing to step in and finish the work? Andreas, are you still interested? If no one steps in until end of October I'll file a RM bug for node-pinkyswear and close the ITP/RFP bugs that are listed in [2]. Best, Philip [1] https://www.shinyproxy.io [2] https://salsa.debian.org/science-team/shiny-server/wikis/Packaging-ToDo signature.asc Description: OpenPGP digital signature
