[Freeswitch-users] Alternative Debian package builder

Mon Mar 18 12:22:13 MSK 2013

Cal's way seems better, perhaps we could go down that route? I think
between us we can easily donate storage space for an apt repository. I set
up mine using reprepro using various guides, one of them here:

http://blog.jonliv.es/2011/04/26/creating-your-own-signed-apt-repository-and-debian-packages/

On 18 March 2013 03:02, Michael Jerris <mike at jerris.com> wrote:

> Some of what we do with forked libraries will never get in to os repos.
>  If anyone feels particularly strongly about things going in to os distro,
> they would first need to resolve working on pushing our patches upstream to
> appropriate open source packages.  This has not been a hight priority for
> the core dev team, but we are open to answering any questions if someone
> wants to do that.  This would be the first pre-requisite before we could
> even discuss what is necessary to get into any of the OS distros.
>
> Mike
>
> On Mar 16, 2013, at 4:37 PM, Ken Rice <krice at freeswitch.org> wrote:
>
>  Getting it into official repos only helps gain wider adaption, many
> people wont even try something if they cant just type ${package_manager}
> install ${application}
>
>
>
> On 3/16/13 12:55 PM, "Avi Marcus" <avi at avimarcus.net> wrote:
>
> At the speed that FS updates, I don't particularly see the point of
> getting it into the official repos...
>
> -Avi
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 8:47 PM, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] <
> cal.leeming at simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 7:16 PM, Ken Rice <krice at freeswitch.org> wrote:
>
> So that’s 1 for 10AM Eastern (CDT) or 2PM GMT Wed.
>
> The problem with installing all the modules is that you don’t always need
> or want them installed on the system. And there are a huge number of people
> doing embedded work with FreeSWITCH. Take Apache as another example a quit
> apt-cache search apache2 shows dozens of apache2 packagesthat you must
> install to get that functionality after the fact.
>
>
> Actually you do have a good point here.
>
> $ apt-cache search apache2 | grep apache | wc -l
> 97
>
>
>
> The whole point of meta packages or config packages for FreeSWITCH is to
> try and keep this consistant across all platforms be it RHEL/Centos or
> Debian or even Ubuntu. This reduces the amount of bandwidth required to
> supporting the various things after FS has been installed.
>
> Personally if it were up to me I would say screw all the different
> variations between how FHS and other file layouts work and say pick one of
> the following, /opt/freeswitch or /usr/local/freeswitch we are going to
> install everything in those locations. This would drastically reduce
> support issues and greatly improve the ability of users to backup and
> change things in FS w/out having to search the entire filesystem to figure
> out where something as simple as freeswitch/db/zrtp.dat is located.
>
>
> In Debian packaging etiquette (afaik), /opt/ is used usually for non-free
> packages, or packages where the source code is not given out and moving
> files around would break the pre-compiled binary. If the end goal was to
> get FS included in the Debian mirrors, then you'd need to go beyond just
> /usr/local/freeswitch.. it'd have to be split into /etc/freeswitch,
> /var/log/freeswitch etc.
>
>
>
> Yes I know that last statement will cause a ton of arguments with people
> as getting started on where things should go on a file system layout is as
> toxic as starting a debat on religion or politics, but that’s not the
> point, we are not a distribution, we are a project developing a specific
> software package. That being said I honestly believe the single install
> location is the proper thing to do, but we can have support for FHS install
> locations etc in the build/packaging scripts to ease distro packagers lives
>  for getting packages into the main distro repo’s. But even then we will
> still have to maintain packages for FreeSWITCH proper repos as you already
> know how hard it is to get the latest release of software for many thing
> (for crying out loud, centos still ships Postgresql 8, and they are up to
> 9.2.3)
>
>
> It really depends what the agreed end goal is.
>
> If we want to one day have it in the various OS mirrors, then it'll have
> to be done properly. This will increase complexity, and end up with more
> time needing to be spent. Packaging is a skill/art in its own rights, and
> you'd need dedicated people to work on packaging for the various OS's.
> Personally, I think the only benefit for splitting up the layout would be
> if you want to get it included in the official OS mirrors. However if this
> is not the case, then having it all inside a single directory is going to
> be quicker and easier, leaving people with more time to focus on other
> things.
>
> If having it under a single dir is agreed, according to [3], /etc/opt is
> expected to store configuration files related to packages inside /opt, the
> use of /usr/local [1] and /opt [2] appears to be OS specific [4]. I don't
> have any strong opinions of whether it should be /opt or /usr/local.
>
> [1] /usr/local -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard#cite_note-29
> [2] /opt -
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard#cite_note-.2Fopt-27
> [3] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filesystem_Hierarchy_Standard
> [4]
> http://stackoverflow.com/questions/12649355/what-does-opt-mean-as-in-the-opt-directory-is-it-an-abbreviation
>
>
> K
>
>
>
> On 3/16/13 11:14 AM, "Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd]" <
> cal.leeming at simplicitymedialtd.co.uk <
> http://cal.leeming@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> > wrote:
>
> Sure I'm up for that, though I think discussing a bit more on email before
> hand would be a good idea too.
>
> I can do 10am Eastern on Wednesday, which would be 2pm GMT/UK time for us.
>
> To clarify my own position on packaging.. Having the packages split into
> their individual modules is a nice idea in theory, but it doesn't feel like
> the 'Debian way'. Most Debian users are used to only installing just a few
> packages, and the package maintainer decides what should be compiled in by
> default (take nginx for example). The application then decides which
> modules should be loaded in using the .so files (for example Apache). The
> exception to this is Python, where you have external Python modules (such
> as python-curl), however these not part of the Python core, thus why they
> are kept separate. Standard python modules (such as zlib) are all included
> by default.
>
> I don't know enough about how FreeSWITCH module linking works, but I would
> have thought that if a module is compiled dynamically, then it won't be
> linked in unless it's specified in modules.conf.xml. In which case, you
> could just have a single package with all the dynamic modules compiled in,
> and you would change which modules are loaded in by editing your
> modules.conf.xml. On that basis, I think that the modules should be
> compiled as a single package.
>
> Any thoughts?
>
> Cal
>
> On Sat, Mar 16, 2013 at 5:18 PM, Ken Rice <krice at freeswitch.org <
> http://krice@freeswitch.org> > wrote:
>
> Debian Packages... Why don’t you guys all get together on the FS conf
> bridge, and lets get everyone working together to get these done in a
> common way... Hows Say Noon Eastern on Tuesday for 10 Eastern on Wed (an
> hour before the regular weekly call) to get all you guys in 1 bridge to
> nail this down.
>
>
>
> On 3/15/13 6:21 PM, "Anthony Minessale" <anthony.minessale at gmail.com <
> http://anthony.minessale@gmail.com>  <http://anthony.minessale@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> Work with ken and we can combine forces and release packages too.
>
> On Mar 15, 2013 6:29 PM, "Andrew Cassidy" <andrew at cassidywebservices.co.uk<
> http://andrew@cassidywebservices.co.uk>  <
> http://andrew@cassidywebservices.co.uk> > wrote:
>
> I just wrote a script that chroots and builds for each env I have
> installed using the provided build scripts.
>
> On 15 March 2013 20:27, Cal Leeming [Simplicity Media Ltd] <
> cal.leeming at simplicitymedialtd.co.uk <
> http://cal.leeming@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk>  <
> http://cal.leeming@simplicitymedialtd.co.uk> > wrote:
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________________
> Professional FreeSWITCH Consulting Services:
> consulting at freeswitch.org
> http://www.freeswitchsolutions.com
>
> 
> 
>
> Official FreeSWITCH Sites
> http://www.freeswitch.org
> http://wiki.freeswitch.org
> http://www.cluecon.com
>
> FreeSWITCH-users mailing list
> FreeSWITCH-users at lists.freeswitch.org
> http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/listinfo/freeswitch-users
> UNSUBSCRIBE:http://lists.freeswitch.org/mailman/options/freeswitch-users
> http://www.freeswitch.org
>
>

-- 
*Andrew Cassidy BSc (Hons) MBCS SSCA*
Managing Director

*T <info at cassidywebservices.co.uk> *03300 100 960
*F<info at cassidywebservices.co.uk>
 *03300 100 961
*E <info at cassidywebservices.co.uk> *andrew at cassidywebservices.co.uk
*W <info at cassidywebservices.co.uk> *www.cassidywebservices.co.uk
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20130318/9b8f0e2e/attachment-0001.html 