[Freeswitch-users] Alternative Debian package builder

Mon Mar 18 06:02:21 MSK 2013

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:

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.freeswitch.org/pipermail/freeswitch-users/attachments/20130317/8769fae0/attachment-0001.html 