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 <j...@v6e.pt> 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 <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 <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 <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
<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
<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<wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
<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
<mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list
<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<wireshark-dev@wireshark.org>
<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
<mailto:wireshark-dev-requ...@wireshark.org?subject=unsubscribe>
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via: Wireshark-dev mailing list <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<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<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 <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
