Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

Really important work there... nothing gets me out of bed like 
suppressing someone else's future potential needs using crappy tools and 
methodologies.


This isn't a criticism of Debian. Use the Debian system if you like it, 
don't use it if you don't.


It is a criticism of Debian in Wireshark, and of the Debian maintainer 
syncing changes upstream. A real trailblazing moment that was.


On 21/11/23 14:47, Roland Knall wrote:
As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am 
against dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it underneath 
packaging, and not in the main directory, which is what the original 
change was about. I respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In 
this case here I think, we can provide assistance for future 
implementors and as a starting point, by keeping the directory 
underneath packaging/debian.


just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey 
:


Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

Probably the most important question is if there is anyone relying on
the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up otherwise the
directory may be dropped.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Balint
___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian assets? 
Since you've got the experience and actually use it?


There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there were 
until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more active 
staying on top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a thought.


On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to provide 
internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.

So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am
against dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it
underneath packaging, and not in the main directory, which is what
the original change was about. I respect Joao's opinion as well as
yours Balint. In this case here I think, we can provide assistance
for future implementors and as a starting point, by keeping the
directory underneath packaging/debian.

just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey
:

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to
maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial
enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

Probably the most important question is if there is anyone
relying on
the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up
otherwise the
directory may be dropped.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Balint

___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list

Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[Roland Knall]

Hi

I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical steering
committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be formed in
January and this topic is exactly why we are going to have the committee in
the first place. The process is in the final steps and should be finished
by the end of the year anyway.

I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually beneficial
for the long term resolution of this situation. Both sides have valid
arguments and good pointers and I would suggest as soon as the committee
has taken up the topic we collectively create a single mission statement as
suggested by Joao above. Until then, personally I will refrain from
discussing this further, as I have said everything there is to say from
my perspective.

Do you agree Gerald?

kind regards
Roland



Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :

> Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian assets?
> Since you've got the experience and actually use it?
>
> There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there were
> until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more active staying
> on top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a thought.
>
> On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to provide
> internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
> So I have been using the Debian build system.
> Best regards
> Anders
>
> Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:
>
>> As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am against
>> dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it underneath packaging, and
>> not in the main directory, which is what the original change was about. I
>> respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In this case here I think,
>> we can provide assistance for future implementors and as a starting point,
>> by keeping the directory underneath packaging/debian.
>>
>> just my thoughts
>> Roland
>>
>>
>> Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey <
>> bal...@balintreczey.hu>:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to maintain the
>>> packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952
>>>
>>> I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial enough for
>>> many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.
>>>
>>> Probably the most important question is if there is anyone relying on
>>> the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up otherwise the
>>> directory may be dropped.
>>>
>>> Comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Balint
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
>>> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>>> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>>>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
>> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
>> ?subject=unsubscribe
>>
>
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list  
> 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe 
> 
>
>
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe
>
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[Anders Broman]

Hi,
I think that if you look at the commit history I have made my fair share of
updating the list in the past.

I was just trying to make the point that some found it useful to be able to
build Deb packages and it might be more fruitful to discuss how that could
be made easier? I think today the script tells you what symbols are missing
perhaps it could just update the list, as an example.
Best regards
Anders

Den ons 22 nov. 2023 12:36João Valverde  skrev:

> Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian assets?
> Since you've got the experience and actually use it?
>
> There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there were
> until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more active staying
> on top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a thought.
>
> On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:
>
> Hi,
> I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to provide
> internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
> So I have been using the Debian build system.
> Best regards
> Anders
>
> Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:
>
>> As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am against
>> dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it underneath packaging, and
>> not in the main directory, which is what the original change was about. I
>> respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In this case here I think,
>> we can provide assistance for future implementors and as a starting point,
>> by keeping the directory underneath packaging/debian.
>>
>> just my thoughts
>> Roland
>>
>>
>> Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey <
>> bal...@balintreczey.hu>:
>>
>>> Hi All,
>>>
>>> João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to maintain the
>>> packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:
>>>
>>>
>>> https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952
>>>
>>> I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial enough for
>>> many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.
>>>
>>> Probably the most important question is if there is anyone relying on
>>> the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up otherwise the
>>> directory may be dropped.
>>>
>>> Comments are welcome.
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>> Balint
>>>
>>> ___
>>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
>>> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>>> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>>>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
>> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
>> ?subject=unsubscribe
>>
>
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list  
> 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe 
> 
>
>
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe
>
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really don't 
care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much exactly the same 
as the old committee, as far as I can tell.


Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you tried 
to bring something to the debate, so thank you for that, at least.


On 22/11/23 11:45, Roland Knall wrote:

Hi

I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical 
steering committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be formed 
in January and this topic is exactly why we are going to have the 
committee in the first place. The process is in the final steps and 
should be finished by the end of the year anyway.


I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually 
beneficial for the long term resolution of this situation. Both sides 
have valid arguments and good pointers and I would suggest as soon as 
the committee has taken up the topic we collectively create a single 
mission statement as suggested by Joao above. Until then, personally I 
will refrain from discussing this further, as I have said everything 
there is to say from my perspective.


Do you agree Gerald?

kind regards
Roland



Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :

Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian
assets? Since you've got the experience and actually use it?

There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there
were until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more
active staying on top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a
thought.

On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to
provide internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I
am against dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it
underneath packaging, and not in the main directory, which is
what the original change was about. I respect Joao's opinion
as well as yours Balint. In this case here I think, we can
provide assistance for future implementors and as a starting
point, by keeping the directory underneath packaging/debian.

just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey
:

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to
maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

I believe the current practice is reasonable and
beneficial enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

Probably the most important question is if there is
anyone relying on
the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up
otherwise the
directory may be dropped.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Balint

___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list

Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list

Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list  

Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe  



___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[Pascal Quantin]

Hi Joao,

Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde  a écrit :

> You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really don't
> care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much exactly the same as
> the old committee, as far as I can tell.
>
> Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you tried to
> bring something to the debate, so thank you for that, at least.
>

It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial goal. I
don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything to the debate, so
I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange between whoever feels
involved in the subject. I personally have never used the Debian scripts,
but I did not consider updating the symbols list as being a really time
consuming task (and I did it numerous times in the past), so I do not have
an opinion on whether the current status quo is good or bad.
Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding whether the
scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the first feedback, let's
see if others do (with the hope that they are monitoring this list...).

Best regards,
Pascal.


> On 22/11/23 11:45, Roland Knall wrote:
>
> Hi
>
> I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical steering
> committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be formed in
> January and this topic is exactly why we are going to have the committee in
> the first place. The process is in the final steps and should be finished
> by the end of the year anyway.
>
> I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually beneficial
> for the long term resolution of this situation. Both sides have valid
> arguments and good pointers and I would suggest as soon as the committee
> has taken up the topic we collectively create a single mission statement as
> suggested by Joao above. Until then, personally I will refrain from
> discussing this further, as I have said everything there is to say from
> my perspective.
>
> Do you agree Gerald?
>
> kind regards
> Roland
>
>
>
> Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :
>
>> Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian assets?
>> Since you've got the experience and actually use it?
>>
>> There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there were
>> until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more active staying
>> on top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a thought.
>>
>> On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:
>>
>> Hi,
>> I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to provide
>> internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
>> So I have been using the Debian build system.
>> Best regards
>> Anders
>>
>> Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:
>>
>>> As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am against
>>> dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it underneath packaging, and
>>> not in the main directory, which is what the original change was about. I
>>> respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In this case here I think,
>>> we can provide assistance for future implementors and as a starting point,
>>> by keeping the directory underneath packaging/debian.
>>>
>>> just my thoughts
>>> Roland
>>>
>>>
>>> Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey <
>>> bal...@balintreczey.hu>:
>>>
 Hi All,

 João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to maintain the
 packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


 https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

 I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial enough for
 many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

 Probably the most important question is if there is anyone relying on
 the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up otherwise the
 directory may be dropped.

 Comments are welcome.

 Cheers,
 Balint

 ___
 Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
 Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
 Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
 ?subject=unsubscribe

>>>
>>> ___
>>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
>>> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>>> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>>>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
>>> ?subject=unsubscribe
>>>
>>
>> ___
>> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list  
>> 
>> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
>> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wiresh

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

So you want to discuss how to make it easier? We can do that. How do you 
feel about the CPack Debian Generator?


On 22/11/23 12:38, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I think that if you look at the commit history I have made my fair 
share of updating the list in the past.


I was just trying to make the point that some found it useful to be 
able to build Deb packages and it might be more fruitful to discuss 
how that could be made easier? I think today the script tells you what 
symbols are missing perhaps it could just update the list, as an example.

Best regards
Anders

Den ons 22 nov. 2023 12:36João Valverde  skrev:

Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian
assets? Since you've got the experience and actually use it?

There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there
were until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more
active staying on top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a
thought.

On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to
provide internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I
am against dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it
underneath packaging, and not in the main directory, which is
what the original change was about. I respect Joao's opinion
as well as yours Balint. In this case here I think, we can
provide assistance for future implementors and as a starting
point, by keeping the directory underneath packaging/debian.

just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey
:

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to
maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

I believe the current practice is reasonable and
beneficial enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

Probably the most important question is if there is
anyone relying on
the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up
otherwise the
directory may be dropped.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Balint

___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list

Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list

Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list  

Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe  



___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
           
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev]

Pretty sure I'm not adding anything useful here, but I was only vaguely
aware of debian packaging support.  If I'm sharing builds with colleagues,
I use Windows packaging, or for Ubuntu we tend to set CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX,
build the 'install' target and transfer it as a tarball.

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 1:12 PM Pascal Quantin  wrote:

> Hi Joao,
>
> Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde  a écrit :
>
>> You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really don't
>> care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much exactly the same as
>> the old committee, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you tried
>> to bring something to the debate, so thank you for that, at least.
>>
>
> It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial goal. I
> don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything to the debate, so
> I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange between whoever feels
> involved in the subject. I personally have never used the Debian scripts,
> but I did not consider updating the symbols list as being a really time
> consuming task (and I did it numerous times in the past), so I do not have
> an opinion on whether the current status quo is good or bad.
> Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding whether the
> scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the first feedback, let's
> see if others do (with the hope that they are monitoring this list...).
>
> Best regards,
> Pascal.
>
>
>> On 22/11/23 11:45, Roland Knall wrote:
>>
>> Hi
>>
>> I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical steering
>> committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be formed in
>> January and this topic is exactly why we are going to have the committee in
>> the first place. The process is in the final steps and should be finished
>> by the end of the year anyway.
>>
>> I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually beneficial
>> for the long term resolution of this situation. Both sides have valid
>> arguments and good pointers and I would suggest as soon as the committee
>> has taken up the topic we collectively create a single mission statement as
>> suggested by Joao above. Until then, personally I will refrain from
>> discussing this further, as I have said everything there is to say from
>> my perspective.
>>
>> Do you agree Gerald?
>>
>> kind regards
>> Roland
>>
>>
>>
>> Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :
>>
>>> Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian assets?
>>> Since you've got the experience and actually use it?
>>>
>>> There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there were
>>> until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more active staying
>>> on top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a thought.
>>>
>>> On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:
>>>
>>> Hi,
>>> I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to provide
>>> internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
>>> So I have been using the Debian build system.
>>> Best regards
>>> Anders
>>>
>>> Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:
>>>
 As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am
 against dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it underneath
 packaging, and not in the main directory, which is what the original change
 was about. I respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In this case
 here I think, we can provide assistance for future implementors and as a
 starting point, by keeping the directory underneath packaging/debian.

 just my thoughts
 Roland


 Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey <
 bal...@balintreczey.hu>:

> Hi All,
>
> João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to maintain the
> packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:
>
>
> https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952
>
> I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial enough for
> many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.
>
> Probably the most important question is if there is anyone relying on
> the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up otherwise the
> directory may be dropped.
>
> Comments are welcome.
>
> Cheers,
> Balint
>
> ___
> Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
> Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
> Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
>  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org
> ?subject=unsubscribe
>

 ___
 Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
 Archives: 

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:

Hi Joao,

Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde  a écrit :

You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really
don't care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much
exactly the same as the old committee, as far as I can tell.

Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you
tried to bring something to the debate, so thank you for that, at
least.


It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial goal. I 
don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything to the 
debate, so I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange between 
whoever feels involved in the subject. I personally have never used 
the Debian scripts, but I did not consider updating the symbols list 
as being a really time consuming task (and I did it numerous times in 
the past), so I do not have an opinion on whether the current status 
quo is good or bad.
Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding whether 
the scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the first feedback, 
let's see if others do (with the hope that they are monitoring this 
list...).


I'm not being aggressive, I'm being candid. And also expressing some 
pretty valid (IMO) criticisms.


And let the discussion shift, what about it? I think it's all relevant 
to the issue of Debian packaging.



Best regards,
Pascal.


On 22/11/23 11:45, Roland Knall wrote:

Hi

I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical
steering committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be
formed in January and this topic is exactly why we are going to
have the committee in the first place. The process is in the
final steps and should be finished by the end of the year anyway.

I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually
beneficial for the long term resolution of this situation. Both
sides have valid arguments and good pointers and I would suggest
as soon as the committee has taken up the topic we collectively
create a single mission statement as suggested by Joao above.
Until then, personally I will refrain from discussing this
further, as I have said everything there is to say from
my perspective.

Do you agree Gerald?

kind regards
Roland



Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :

Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark
Debian assets? Since you've got the experience and actually
use it?

There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or
there were until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there,
and be more active staying on top of the all-important symbol
lists. Just a thought.

On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to
provide internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as
well - I am against dropping packaging/debian. But I am
for having it underneath packaging, and not in the main
directory, which is what the original change was about.
I respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In
this case here I think, we can provide assistance for
future implementors and as a starting point, by keeping
the directory underneath packaging/debian.

just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey
:

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's
commitment to maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

I believe the current practice is reasonable and
beneficial enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

Probably the most important question is if there is
anyone relying on
the packaging scripts there. If you are, please
speak up otherwise the
directory may be dropped.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Balint

___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list

Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:
https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[Pascal Quantin]

Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:25, João Valverde  a écrit :

>
> On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:
>
> Hi Joao,
>
> Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde  a écrit :
>
>> You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really don't
>> care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much exactly the same as
>> the old committee, as far as I can tell.
>>
>> Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you tried
>> to bring something to the debate, so thank you for that, at least.
>>
>
> It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial goal. I
> don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything to the debate, so
> I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange between whoever feels
> involved in the subject. I personally have never used the Debian scripts,
> but I did not consider updating the symbols list as being a really time
> consuming task (and I did it numerous times in the past), so I do not have
> an opinion on whether the current status quo is good or bad.
> Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding whether the
> scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the first feedback, let's
> see if others do (with the hope that they are monitoring this list...).
>
>
> I'm not being aggressive, I'm being candid. And also expressing some
> pretty valid (IMO) criticisms.
>
And let the discussion shift, what about it? I think it's all relevant to
> the issue of Debian packaging.
>

Well that's all about communication. I personally find the emails you are
sending today as being more and more aggressive. Maybe that's just me, or
maybe this is the language / cultural differences, but I think it was worth
notifying you as you might not be aware of how others can react to what you
are writing.

Best regards.
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

On 22/11/23 13:29, Pascal Quantin wrote:



Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:25, João Valverde  a écrit :


On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:

Hi Joao,

Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde  a écrit :

You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I
really don't care to wait for the new committee that is
pretty much exactly the same as the old committee, as far as
I can tell.

Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least
you tried to bring something to the debate, so thank you for
that, at least.


It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial
goal. I don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything
to the debate, so I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange
between whoever feels involved in the subject. I personally have
never used the Debian scripts, but I did not consider updating
the symbols list as being a really time consuming task (and I did
it numerous times in the past), so I do not have an opinion on
whether the current status quo is good or bad.
Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding
whether the scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the
first feedback, let's see if others do (with the hope that they
are monitoring this list...).


I'm not being aggressive, I'm being candid. And also expressing
some pretty valid (IMO) criticisms.

And let the discussion shift, what about it? I think it's all
relevant to the issue of Debian packaging.


Well that's all about communication. I personally find the emails you 
are sending today as being more and more aggressive. Maybe that's just 
me, or maybe this is the language / cultural differences, but I think 
it was worth notifying you as you might not be aware of how others can 
react to what you are writing.


I apologize if the sarcasm in the committee line caused offense. I 
should have phrased that more gently.




Best regards.

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

On 22/11/23 13:23, Martin Mathieson via Wireshark-dev wrote:
Pretty sure I'm not adding anything useful here, but I was only 
vaguely aware of debian packaging support.  If I'm sharing builds with 
colleagues, I use Windows packaging, or for Ubuntu we tend to set 
CMAKE_INSTALL_PREFIX, build the 'install' target and transfer it as a 
tarball.




You can use CPack for that now. Something like "cpack -G TZST 
". Works really well in my opinion.


On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 1:12 PM Pascal Quantin  
wrote:


Hi Joao,

Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde  a écrit :

You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I
really don't care to wait for the new committee that is pretty
much exactly the same as the old committee, as far as I can tell.

Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least
you tried to bring something to the debate, so thank you for
that, at least.


It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial
goal. I don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything
to the debate, so I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange
between whoever feels involved in the subject. I personally have
never used the Debian scripts, but I did not consider updating the
symbols list as being a really time consuming task (and I did it
numerous times in the past), so I do not have an opinion on
whether the current status quo is good or bad.
Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding
whether the scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the
first feedback, let's see if others do (with the hope that they
are monitoring this list...).

Best regards,
Pascal.


On 22/11/23 11:45, Roland Knall wrote:

Hi

I would recommend that we bring this topic before the
technical steering committee. As of right now, that committee
needs to be formed in January and this topic is exactly why
we are going to have the committee in the first place. The
process is in the final steps and should be finished by the
end of the year anyway.

I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually
beneficial for the long term resolution of this situation.
Both sides have valid arguments and good pointers and I would
suggest as soon as the committee has taken up the topic we
collectively create a single mission statement as suggested
by Joao above. Until then, personally I will refrain from
discussing this further, as I have said everything there is
to say from my perspective.

Do you agree Gerald?

kind regards
Roland



Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde
:

Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark
Debian assets? Since you've got the experience and
actually use it?

There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed,
or there were until recently. Maybe you'd like to start
there, and be more active staying on top of the
all-important symbol lists. Just a thought.

On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages
easily to provide internal installation packages and
even ppa for Ubuntu.
So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall
 skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as
well - I am against dropping packaging/debian. But I
am for having it underneath packaging, and not in
the main directory, which is what the original
change was about. I respect Joao's opinion as well
as yours Balint. In this case here I think, we can
provide assistance for future implementors and as a
starting point, by keeping the directory underneath
packaging/debian.

just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint
Réczey :

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's
commitment to maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

I believe the current practice is reasonable and
beneficial enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be
wrong.

Probably the most important question is if ther

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:

Hi Joao,

Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde  a écrit :

You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really
don't care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much
exactly the same as the old committee, as far as I can tell.

Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you
tried to bring something to the debate, so thank you for that, at
least.


It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial goal. I 
don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything to the 
debate, so I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange between 
whoever feels involved in the subject. I personally have never used 
the Debian scripts, but I did not consider updating the symbols list 
as being a really time consuming task (and I did it numerous times in 
the past), so I do not have an opinion on whether the current status 
quo is good or bad.
Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding whether 
the scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the first feedback, 
let's see if others do (with the hope that they are monitoring this 
list...).




There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in my opinion, 
if we want to provide public shared libraries (libwireshark, wiretap, 
wsutil... for what I don't know) we should do a better job of that 
collectively as a project. If we don't want to do that we should kill 
the Debian package inanity.


A third alternative is just to keep the status quo and I'll try to avoid 
this subject entirely because of how much it bothers me to just ignore 
all these technical issues.



Best regards,
Pascal.


On 22/11/23 11:45, Roland Knall wrote:

Hi

I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical
steering committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be
formed in January and this topic is exactly why we are going to
have the committee in the first place. The process is in the
final steps and should be finished by the end of the year anyway.

I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually
beneficial for the long term resolution of this situation. Both
sides have valid arguments and good pointers and I would suggest
as soon as the committee has taken up the topic we collectively
create a single mission statement as suggested by Joao above.
Until then, personally I will refrain from discussing this
further, as I have said everything there is to say from
my perspective.

Do you agree Gerald?

kind regards
Roland



Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :

Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark
Debian assets? Since you've got the experience and actually
use it?

There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or
there were until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there,
and be more active staying on top of the all-important symbol
lists. Just a thought.

On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to
provide internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall  skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as
well - I am against dropping packaging/debian. But I am
for having it underneath packaging, and not in the main
directory, which is what the original change was about.
I respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In
this case here I think, we can provide assistance for
future implementors and as a starting point, by keeping
the directory underneath packaging/debian.

just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey
:

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's
commitment to maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

I believe the current practice is reasonable and
beneficial enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

Probably the most important question is if there is
anyone relying on
the packaging scripts there. If you are, please
speak up otherwise the
directory may be dropped.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Balint

___

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

On 22/11/23 14:39, João Valverde wrote:



On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:

Hi Joao,

Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde  a écrit :

You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I
really don't care to wait for the new committee that is pretty
much exactly the same as the old committee, as far as I can tell.

Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you
tried to bring something to the debate, so thank you for that, at
least.


It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial goal. 
I don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything to the 
debate, so I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange between 
whoever feels involved in the subject. I personally have never used 
the Debian scripts, but I did not consider updating the symbols list 
as being a really time consuming task (and I did it numerous times in 
the past), so I do not have an opinion on whether the current status 
quo is good or bad.
Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding whether 
the scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the first 
feedback, let's see if others do (with the hope that they are 
monitoring this list...).




There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in my 
opinion, if we want to provide public shared libraries (libwireshark, 
wiretap, wsutil... for what I don't know) we should do a better job of 
that collectively as a project. If we don't want to do that we should 
kill the Debian package inanity.


A third alternative is just to keep the status quo and I'll try to 
avoid this subject entirely because of how much it bothers me to just 
ignore all these technical issues.


To bring it back to the original issue, I personally disagree with 
moving the Debian assets into the packaging subdir, although I 
sympathize with the reasons of course, and it doesn't bother me in the 
slightest because I don't use it.


Many if not all Debian tools expect a top dir debian directory. And I 
totally understand Debian not trying to accommodate something that is 
not a relevant use-case for the Debian system (like upstream having 
different ideas of what a filesystem layout should be).


Moving it just makes using the Debian package less practical and useful 
than it already is.





Best regards,
Pascal.


On 22/11/23 11:45, Roland Knall wrote:

Hi

I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical
steering committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be
formed in January and this topic is exactly why we are going to
have the committee in the first place. The process is in the
final steps and should be finished by the end of the year anyway.

I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually
beneficial for the long term resolution of this situation. Both
sides have valid arguments and good pointers and I would suggest
as soon as the committee has taken up the topic we collectively
create a single mission statement as suggested by Joao above.
Until then, personally I will refrain from discussing this
further, as I have said everything there is to say from
my perspective.

Do you agree Gerald?

kind regards
Roland



Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde :

Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark
Debian assets? Since you've got the experience and actually
use it?

There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or
there were until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there,
and be more active staying on top of the all-important
symbol lists. Just a thought.

On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily
to provide internal installation packages and even ppa for
Ubuntu.
So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall 
skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as
well - I am against dropping packaging/debian. But I am
for having it underneath packaging, and not in the main
directory, which is what the original change was about.
I respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In
this case here I think, we can provide assistance for
future implementors and as a starting point, by keeping
the directory underneath packaging/debian.

just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint
Réczey :

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's
commitment to maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshar

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[John Thacker]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:40 AM João Valverde  wrote:

>
> There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in my opinion, if
> we want to provide public shared libraries (libwireshark, wiretap,
> wsutil... for what I don't know) we should do a better job of that
> collectively as a project. If we don't want to do that we should kill the
> Debian package inanity.
>
> A third alternative is just to keep the status quo and I'll try to avoid
> this subject entirely because of how much it bothers me to just ignore all
> these technical issues.
>

My understanding of the Debian packaging scripts (and similar for the RPM
package) use case is that people might be running one of those
distributions and want to upgrade Wireshark on their system using their
distribution's native package manager by taking either a git repository or
a tarball and building a package that they can upgrade their
distribution-provided package to.

That isn't necessarily to add custom dissectors and provide public shared
libraries, though it could be. Oftentimes it's as simple as "my
distribution is capable of compiling 3.6.x or later, but for stability
reasons it's still shipping 2.6.x (Debian buster/oldstable, RHEL 8 and
clones)," and someone wants to update wireshark without any of their own
changes, just without upgrading their distribution. It's handy to be able
to accommodate that if possible.

I think moving the packaging assets to the packaging directory and telling
people to symbolically link it to build Debian, as we've been doing, is a
relatively minor imposition for the Debian folks, but my understanding is
that the package builds will fail if all the Lintian stuff isn't done,
which creates a burden on us.

On RPM distributions there's an annoyance because Red Hat / Fedora decided
to change their package names around a bit, so they're no longer quite
compatible with the old names which we provide (and which still work with
other RPM-based distros -
https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/18709 ).

John Thacker
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[John Thacker]

On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 10:37 AM John Thacker  wrote:

>
> I think moving the packaging assets to the packaging directory and telling
> people to symbolically link it to build Debian, as we've been doing, is a
> relatively minor imposition for the Debian folks, but my understanding is
> that the package builds will fail if all the Lintian stuff isn't done,
> which creates a burden on us.
>

And it looks like Balint is trying to present a compromise on the symbols
issue:

https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/merge_requests/13385

John
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[João Valverde]

On 22/11/23 15:37, John Thacker wrote:


On Wed, Nov 22, 2023 at 9:40 AM João Valverde  wrote:


There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in my
opinion, if we want to provide public shared libraries
(libwireshark, wiretap, wsutil... for what I don't know) we should
do a better job of that collectively as a project. If we don't
want to do that we should kill the Debian package inanity.

A third alternative is just to keep the status quo and I'll try to
avoid this subject entirely because of how much it bothers me to
just ignore all these technical issues.


My understanding of the Debian packaging scripts (and similar for the 
RPM package) use case is that people might be running one of those 
distributions and want to upgrade Wireshark on their system using 
their distribution's native package manager by taking either a git 
repository or a tarball and building a package that they can upgrade 
their distribution-provided package to.


That isn't necessarily to add custom dissectors and provide public 
shared libraries, though it could be. Oftentimes it's as simple as "my 
distribution is capable of compiling 3.6.x or later, but for stability 
reasons it's still shipping 2.6.x (Debian buster/oldstable, RHEL 8 and 
clones)," and someone wants to update wireshark without any of their 
own changes, just without upgrading their distribution. It's handy to 
be able to accommodate that if possible.


Thanks for the feedback. Let me try to break down my response to that:

1. I think spending resources on distro packaging is unwise in general. 
"Make install" works fine and there are great maintainers already doing 
that work for Linux distributions. RPM is just low-effort low-intrusion 
enough that it doesn't bother me to divert from other tasks to work on 
it when I have to.


2. Debian is especially ill-suited for end-users building locally. The 
recommended way to have a stable system without broken dependencies is 
to create a local APT repository. Anything else is asking for trouble.


3. Our Debian package is particularly unfriendly to the 
user-wants-to-build-locally use-case. I could maybe see providing a 
basic .deb package but why are we syncing changes from downstream with 5 
different binary packages and loads of Debian policy baggage? It's a 
very unique situation and I fail to see any benefit for end-users or 
Wireshark developers. Maybe the reason is that we would like to be the 
best upstream possible for Debian. It's a reason at least.




I think moving the packaging assets to the packaging directory and 
telling people to symbolically link it to build Debian, as we've been 
doing, is a relatively minor imposition for the Debian folks, but my 
understanding is that the package builds will fail if all the Lintian 
stuff isn't done, which creates a burden on us.


On RPM distributions there's an annoyance because Red Hat / Fedora 
decided to change their package names around a bit, so they're no 
longer quite compatible with the old names which we provide (and which 
still work with other RPM-based distros - 
https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/issues/18709 ).


John Thacker

___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe
___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list 
Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
 mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe

Re: [Wireshark-dev] Future of Wireshark's Debian packaging scripts in the main repository

[Gerald Combs]

I think this falls well within the scope of the steering committee, and would 
be a good first exercise.

On 11/22/23 3:45 AM, Roland Knall wrote:

Hi

I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical steering 
committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be formed in January and 
this topic is exactly why we are going to have the committee in the first 
place. The process is in the final steps and should be finished by the end of 
the year anyway.

I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually beneficial for 
the long term resolution of this situation. Both sides have valid arguments and 
good pointers and I would suggest as soon as the committee has taken up the 
topic we collectively create a single mission statement as suggested by Joao 
above. Until then, personally I will refrain from discussing this further, as I 
have said everything there is to say from my perspective.

Do you agree Gerald?

kind regards
Roland



Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde mailto:j...@v6e.pt>>:

__
Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian assets? 
Since you've got the experience and actually use it?

There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there were 
until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more active staying on 
top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a thought.

On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,
I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to provide 
internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu.
So I have been using the Debian build system.
Best regards
Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall mailto:rkn...@gmail.com>> skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am 
against dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it underneath packaging, 
and not in the main directory, which is what the original change was about. I 
respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In this case here I think, we 
can provide assistance for future implementors and as a starting point, by 
keeping the directory underneath packaging/debian.

just my thoughts
Roland


Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey mailto:bal...@balintreczey.hu>>:

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to maintain 
the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:


https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952
 


I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial enough 
for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

Probably the most important question is if there is anyone relying 
on
the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up otherwise 
the
directory may be dropped.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Balint

___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev 

Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev 

             mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org 
?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>>
Archives: https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev 

Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev 

             mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org 
?subject=unsubscribe


___
Sent via:Wireshark-dev mailing list  

Archives:https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev  

Unsubscribe:https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev  

  mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe  



___
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list mailto:wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>>
Archive