Re: [Geany-devel] Dropping Waf support?

2012-07-16 Thread Matthew Brush 

On 12-07-16 10:36 AM, Enrico Tröger wrote:

Hey all,

this topic has been brought up already a couple of times, for example on
[1].

What do you think about dropping Waf support in Geany and in the
Geany-Plugins project?

While I was defending Waf in Geany, I somewhat changed my mind. Not
because I don't like it anymore, but I increasingly see the efforts in
maintaining two (to be exactly three for Geany) build systems is too
much. Since the make/MSYS build system support seems to get better and
better due to Nick's and Dimitar's work on it, I thought about dropping
the Waf support. It seems nobody knows it well enough and probably
except for a few users nobody is using it.
(And obviously I don't do so much anymore and also lost a bit interest
in maintaining forever.)

The other thing is that Waf causes often problems for distro packages,
especially for the Debian folks [2].

So, I'd go the easy way in this case and just remove Waf. Then we only
need to maintain the autotools based build system for non-Windows
systems and the make based for Windows.

For Geany-Plugins, we would need to get something working on Windows but
maybe we could re-use Geany's make based system for Windows here.


What do you guys think?



Sounds fine to me as long as it doesn't mess up your great Windows builds.

In a perfect world we could also eventually drop (or not rely on) the 
Windows Make files too since it seems like with a proper Mingw/MSYS 
setup the Autotools stuff is supposed work I think. I know the last time 
I tried it didn't work, but it's probably not something that can't be fixed.


So +1 to getting rid of Waf, also not because it's bad, just because 
it's extra work for little benefit (to me at least).


Cheers,
Matthew Brush


___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Dropping Waf support?

2012-07-16 Thread Colomban Wendling 
Le 16/07/2012 19:36, Enrico Tröger a écrit :
> Hey all,
> 
> this topic has been brought up already a couple of times, for example on
> [1].
> 
> What do you think about dropping Waf support in Geany and in the
> Geany-Plugins project?
> 
> While I was defending Waf in Geany, I somewhat changed my mind. Not
> because I don't like it anymore, but I increasingly see the efforts in
> maintaining two (to be exactly three for Geany) build systems is too
> much. Since the make/MSYS build system support seems to get better and
> better due to Nick's and Dimitar's work on it, I thought about dropping
> the Waf support. It seems nobody knows it well enough and probably
> except for a few users nobody is using it.
> (And obviously I don't do so much anymore and also lost a bit interest
> in maintaining forever.)
> 
> The other thing is that Waf causes often problems for distro packages,
> especially for the Debian folks [2].
> 
> So, I'd go the easy way in this case and just remove Waf. Then we only
> need to maintain the autotools based build system for non-Windows
> systems and the make based for Windows.
> 
> For Geany-Plugins, we would need to get something working on Windows but
> maybe we could re-use Geany's make based system for Windows here.
> 
> 
> What do you guys think?

I don't mind much, since I don't use Waf nor build on Windows myself.
But yes, I agree that it Autotools and Windows-specific makefiles covers
all platforms there is no need to maintain an N-th build system.

This said, the only time I wanted to build on Windows I used Waf --
though I haven't even tried the specific makefiles.

So I don't mind, but I probably won't maintain Waf either because of a
lack of interest and knowledge.

My 2¢.  Regards,
Colomban

> 
> 
> [1]
> http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3460449&group_id=153444&atid=787794
> [2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645190
> 
> Regards,
> Enrico
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Third party plugin publish and third party library bundle problem

2012-07-16 Thread Frank Lanitz 
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 23:13:55 +0800
Hong Xu  wrote:

> On 2012/7/15 15:49, Frank Lanitz wrote:
> > On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 13:39:56 +0800
> > Hong Xu  wrote:
> >
> >> Whatever the answer is, can I put my plugin in
> >>  ? This repository seems
> >> better maintained than mine.
> >
> > I didn't have a look onto you code by now but in general you can add
> > you plugin also to geany-plugins project. I'd prefer you to having
> > you own fork of plugins and sending pull request against
> > geany/geany-plguins/master
> >
> >> The second problem is that, how should I bundle a third party C
> >> library with my plugin?
> >
> > I think Matthew answered here very well. It really depends on how
> > common this library is or if you are patching it in some kind.
> > Well... I don't like shipping to much libraries with one plugin as
> > there is always an question of updates in terms of a security fault
> > etc. Also this might could cause ending up in typical Windows
> > scenario where you are might having GTK installed about 1000 times
> > - each GTK serving its own application. So: if the library is
> > typical packaged for target platforms or if its available via a
> > common way (e.g. ppa on Ubuntu, some of the rpm-pages for SuSE or
> > Fedora/RH/SL) and you don't have any patches inside I wouldn't
> > deliver it with the plugin but depend on it.
> >
> 
> Currently, the library is not commonly distributed under common 
> distributions. The library URL is: 
> https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-core

Based on that I think including would be fine.  

> There's a problem here: the library build system is based on CMake, 
> while the geany-plugins project supports both autotools and waf. If I 
> want to include the source in my code, I would probably have to 
> reproduce the cmake build system using autotools. Do you have any 
> suggestions handling a CMake third party library in geany-plugins?
> And do I also need to support BOTH the two build systems?

Well please include it to autotools if ever possible. Even cmake
might have some advantages (cannot say) I don't see any chance in terms
of man power etc to have it also maintained.

Cheers, 
Frank
-- 
http://frank.uvena.de/en/


pgpR64oy5iLaV.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Third party plugin publish and third party library bundle problem

2012-07-16 Thread Frank Lanitz 
On Mon, 16 Jul 2012 16:59:12 +0200
Thomas Martitz  wrote:

> Am 16.07.2012 16:58, schrieb Thomas Martitz:
> > Am 16.07.2012 16:41, schrieb Hong Xu:
> >> On 2012/7/15 20:28, Frank Lanitz wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:56:32 +1000
> >>> Lex Trotman  wrote:
> >>>
>  BTW you mentioned a third party library, but you didn't say what
>  library.  It would of course have to have a suitable license to
>  allow it to be included.
> >>>
> >>> Yes. I missed that too. Most plugins are GPL2+ so it needs to be
> >>> also GPL2+... BSD should also be fine in most cases. But LGPL
> >>> could be problematic.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >> I prefer Simplified BSD License for this plugin. What do you mean
> >> it should be fine for "most" cases? Could you explain more?
> >
> > The 2-clause BSD is always fun. As is LGPLv2+.
> 
> s/fun/fine/ :)

Rethinking about . well, you might are correct. In terms of
distribution as we most likely will do, LPGL should also be fine.
Sorry -  my fault. 
In terms of BSD I'm thinking about some special parts e.g. calling
author's names inside credits I saw in past. But should not be
apply able on our case 

Cheers, 
Frank

-- 
http://frank.uvena.de/en/


pgpXZbmoQPcMW.pgp
Description: PGP signature
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

[Geany-devel] Dropping Waf support?

2012-07-16 Thread Enrico Tröger 
Hey all,

this topic has been brought up already a couple of times, for example on
[1].

What do you think about dropping Waf support in Geany and in the
Geany-Plugins project?

While I was defending Waf in Geany, I somewhat changed my mind. Not
because I don't like it anymore, but I increasingly see the efforts in
maintaining two (to be exactly three for Geany) build systems is too
much. Since the make/MSYS build system support seems to get better and
better due to Nick's and Dimitar's work on it, I thought about dropping
the Waf support. It seems nobody knows it well enough and probably
except for a few users nobody is using it.
(And obviously I don't do so much anymore and also lost a bit interest
in maintaining forever.)

The other thing is that Waf causes often problems for distro packages,
especially for the Debian folks [2].

So, I'd go the easy way in this case and just remove Waf. Then we only
need to maintain the autotools based build system for non-Windows
systems and the make based for Windows.

For Geany-Plugins, we would need to get something working on Windows but
maybe we could re-use Geany's make based system for Windows here.


What do you guys think?


[1]
http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index.php?func=detail&aid=3460449&group_id=153444&atid=787794
[2] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=645190

Regards,
Enrico

-- 
Get my GPG key from http://www.uvena.de/pub.asc




signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Third party plugin publish and third party library bundle problem

2012-07-16 Thread Hong Xu 

On 2012/7/15 15:49, Frank Lanitz wrote:

On Sat, 07 Jul 2012 13:39:56 +0800
Hong Xu  wrote:


Whatever the answer is, can I put my plugin in
 ? This repository seems
better maintained than mine.


I didn't have a look onto you code by now but in general you can add
you plugin also to geany-plugins project. I'd prefer you to having you
own fork of plugins and sending pull request against
geany/geany-plguins/master


The second problem is that, how should I bundle a third party C
library with my plugin?


I think Matthew answered here very well. It really depends on how common
this library is or if you are patching it in some kind. Well... I don't
like shipping to much libraries with one plugin as there is always an
question of updates in terms of a security fault etc. Also this might
could cause ending up in typical Windows scenario where you are
might having GTK installed about 1000 times - each GTK serving its own
application. So: if the library is typical packaged for target
platforms or if its available via a common way (e.g. ppa on Ubuntu,
some of the rpm-pages for SuSE or Fedora/RH/SL) and you don't have any
patches inside I wouldn't deliver it with the plugin but depend on it.



Currently, the library is not commonly distributed under common 
distributions. The library URL is: 
https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-core


There's a problem here: the library build system is based on CMake, 
while the geany-plugins project supports both autotools and waf. If I 
want to include the source in my code, I would probably have to 
reproduce the cmake build system using autotools. Do you have any 
suggestions handling a CMake third party library in geany-plugins? And 
do I also need to support BOTH the two build systems?


Hong
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Third party plugin publish and third party library bundle problem

2012-07-16 Thread Hong Xu 

On 2012/7/15 19:56, Lex Trotman wrote:

On 15 July 2012 21:03, Hong Xu  wrote:

On 07/15/2012 07:01 PM, Hong Xu wrote:


On 07/15/2012 03:40 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:


On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:27:46 +0800
Hong Xu  wrote:


And, BTW, why geany-plugins project doesn't use a submodule for each
plugin? Not all people need to clone the whole repository, and as it
is separated to submodules, the permission control can be better for
developers.



IIRc this was under discussion in past but was dismissed due to adding
complexity and little overall understanding of this. However, I don't
think cloning the repository is this much traffic. Also a goal was to
have plugins and its patches being reviewed before entering master to
enforce a minimum on quality. This also includes some
fire-and-forget-plugins of some developers as you can see from
MAINTAINERS files there are a lot of plugins out of maintenance.



Thanks. However, I have to make a pull request for any trivial changes
in this way. Do you think this is unnecessary?

In you mind, is there any advantages for geany plugins in this repo
other than other places?



Sorry, any *other* besides the quality enforcement?


Well, of course the geany-plugins is packaged for at least some
distros, in particular debian and ubuntu.  That will of course get
greater exposure, and maybe contributions, and also maybe bug reports
:)

BTW you mentioned a third party library, but you didn't say what
library.  It would of course have to have a suitable license to allow
it to be included.



The library is here: https://github.com/editorconfig/editorconfig-core

It is released under Simplified BSD License. So I believe this is not an 
issue.


Hong


___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Third party plugin publish and third party library bundle problem

2012-07-16 Thread Thomas Martitz 

Am 16.07.2012 16:58, schrieb Thomas Martitz:

Am 16.07.2012 16:41, schrieb Hong Xu:

On 2012/7/15 20:28, Frank Lanitz wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:56:32 +1000
Lex Trotman  wrote:


BTW you mentioned a third party library, but you didn't say what
library.  It would of course have to have a suitable license to allow
it to be included.


Yes. I missed that too. Most plugins are GPL2+ so it needs to be also
GPL2+... BSD should also be fine in most cases. But LGPL could be
problematic.




I prefer Simplified BSD License for this plugin. What do you mean it 
should be fine for "most" cases? Could you explain more?


The 2-clause BSD is always fun. As is LGPLv2+.


s/fun/fine/ :)
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Third party plugin publish and third party library bundle problem

2012-07-16 Thread Thomas Martitz 

Am 16.07.2012 16:41, schrieb Hong Xu:

On 2012/7/15 20:28, Frank Lanitz wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:56:32 +1000
Lex Trotman  wrote:


BTW you mentioned a third party library, but you didn't say what
library.  It would of course have to have a suitable license to allow
it to be included.


Yes. I missed that too. Most plugins are GPL2+ so it needs to be also
GPL2+... BSD should also be fine in most cases. But LGPL could be
problematic.




I prefer Simplified BSD License for this plugin. What do you mean it 
should be fine for "most" cases? Could you explain more?


The 2-clause BSD is always fun. As is LGPLv2+.

Best regards.
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Third party plugin publish and third party library bundle problem

2012-07-16 Thread Hong Xu 

On 2012/7/15 21:21, Thomas Martitz wrote:

Am 15.07.2012 14:26, schrieb Frank Lanitz:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 19:01:53 +0800
Hong Xu  wrote:


On 07/15/2012 03:40 PM, Frank Lanitz wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 09:27:46 +0800
Hong Xu  wrote:


And, BTW, why geany-plugins project doesn't use a submodule for
each plugin? Not all people need to clone the whole repository,
and as it is separated to submodules, the permission control can
be better for developers.

IIRc this was under discussion in past but was dismissed due to
adding complexity and little overall understanding of this.
However, I don't think cloning the repository is this much traffic.
Also a goal was to have plugins and its patches being reviewed
before entering master to enforce a minimum on quality. This also
includes some fire-and-forget-plugins of some developers as you can
see from MAINTAINERS files there are a lot of plugins out of
maintenance.


Thanks. However, I have to make a pull request for any trivial
changes in this way. Do you think this is unnecessary?

We are still in finding a good flow on this as I agree its not optimal.


Most of the time changes are not actually trivial. Also multiple small
and trivial changes can be submitted as a single pull request.

Anyway this is the linux kernel dev model and it works good (for some
projects) even if tiny changes need to go through the chain as well.



OK, that should be fine.

Hong
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel

Re: [Geany-devel] Third party plugin publish and third party library bundle problem

2012-07-16 Thread Hong Xu 

On 2012/7/15 20:28, Frank Lanitz wrote:

On Sun, 15 Jul 2012 21:56:32 +1000
Lex Trotman  wrote:


BTW you mentioned a third party library, but you didn't say what
library.  It would of course have to have a suitable license to allow
it to be included.


Yes. I missed that too. Most plugins are GPL2+ so it needs to be also
GPL2+... BSD should also be fine in most cases. But LGPL could be
problematic.




I prefer Simplified BSD License for this plugin. What do you mean it 
should be fine for "most" cases? Could you explain more?


Thanks,
Hong
___
Geany-devel mailing list
Geany-devel@uvena.de
https://lists.uvena.de/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/geany-devel