Packaging #11
Comments
ghost
assigned 
|
Someone from the otr-dev list is willing to package it for fedora \o/ |
|
Wouldn't the existing package work for this? http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/irssi-plugin-xmpp.html If this is not a complete rewrite, then porting the package should be relatively trivial. |
|
I think you mean to add irssi-xmpp support to irssi-otr? It might even work out of the box, not sure. Worth testing indeed! |
|
Er. That's not what I meant at all, sorry, I meant to point to: http://packages.qa.debian.org/i/irssi-plugin-otr.html The maintainer of that package should probably be contacted directly. |
|
So, we did, a year ago, then he popped up about a month ago for a short while and now he's gone again... :-/ |
|
Well in any case this work is still there, we can just reuse the debian/ directory from that project... I'd be happy to work out the logistical details on the debian side, as I am a debian member. |
|
I've exchanged email with a Fedora packager saying that we should probably change name for the package because, at the moment, "irssi-plugin-otr" does MORE and is bound to libotr3 as well. So we might want to change the naming scheme to I don,t know "irssi-plugin-otr4" to indicate 4.x support Thoughts? |
|
What does plugin-otr do that otr4 doesn't? irssi-plugin-otr4 seems fine, although note that libotr is called libotr5 in debian, confusingly enough. |
|
Is that the entire package from ulim together with xchat/weechat-otr? |
|
FYI, I created an Arch Linux package for the git version. I'll wait for the next "official" version to come out to create a "versioned" package. |
|
sweet! thanks so much! |
|
Yeah, the current Debian package also builds xchat-otr. We could use a different name, but in any case we need to talk to the current maintainer. |
|
Yeah, imho, it's quite odd that they allowed something like xchat/irssi-otr under an irssi-otr package name, quite confusing. Anyway, I agree it should change name's. Irssi-otr meanwhile got packaged into fedora core 18 (https://people.redhat.com/pwouters/otr/) with the name irssi-plugin-otr. Which make's sense, however, it got the same name under ubuntu, but that; s still the old package. I guess we should ping distro package maintainers if they are willing to deprecate the old packages. |
|
It's actually quite common: sometimes a "source package" is used to generate multiple "binary packages" which have actually different names. The irssi-plugin-otr binary package doesn't support xchat-otr, but both packages are built from the same source package. |
|
Actually, it seems that this issue was already mentionned with the current package maintainer, here: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=695150 I'll followup there and try to ping. |
|
Oh, and what would be the version number when we go stable here? We go boldly to 1.0? Or we followup with the previous upstream (0.3) and release 0.4? |
|
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Going to 1.0. That is the goal since right now it's tagged as 1.0-alpha1 Thanks! anarcat:
iQEcBAEBCgAGBQJQx5yZAAoJEELoaioR9I027MIIALa28n3KzRTZhH3wi2C58KSr |
|
I assume this is now about other packaging systems since Debian is mostly done and followed up in a dupe (#26). |
|
Correct, I think we should ping our other package maintainers at some point to provide an up-to-date package! |
Provide packaging for .deb's and RPM's.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: