Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> writes:
> Wearing a Debian 'user' as well as 'developer' hat, I was stopped in the tracks
> a few days ago when I tried to look at some C/c++ IDE (code::blocks) which would
> not configure on my testing box due to a lack of wxWidgets 2.8.
>
> Not nice at all. I can typically rely on Debian for having recent and common
> software. In this case, Ubuntu won.

So are the purported problems with wxw 2.8 bad or not?

-Miles

--
/ /
(^.^)
(")")
*This is the cute kitty virus, please copy this into your sig so it can spread.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Feb 4, 2008 6:24 PM, Ron <ron@debian.org> wrote:


> Richard, please don't profess to speak for me -- especially not couched
> in terms such as "more or less". There were several things that people
> tried to explain to you in that discussion that you 'more or less'
> refused to accept, so please don't muddy the waters further by spreading
> more misunderstanding.

I did not profess to speak for you, I am well aware you can do so,
yourself.
What I did was summarize the proceedings of a discussion for the benefit
of the people who did not see it or even knew it took place. If both
sides, being mainly represented by you and me respectively, walk away
from a discussion unhappy, 'more or less' is a valid and helpful
qualifier that emphasizes the disagreement while not blaming either
party.

That being said, let me address your points a last time as I fear we
are seeing the same patterns that have led into the current situation.

Namely, a total block of any progress related to wxwidgets 2.8, no
matter how many other packages would depend on it or have not even been
ITP'ed because of the 2.8 situation (I know of several).


> 1) People who have an interest in 2.8 contact Ron to work together.
>
> As we discussed, as I've said previously, and as Myon already announced
> once again, lets just start with this step shall we. We can let the
> people actually doing the work make judgements on where it will go from
> there -- once some work actually gets done and is suitably reviewed.

To quote myself for the benefit of people reading this mail:

> 2) People are free to upload 2.8 as a separate package without him
> minding the fact that his namespace is impacted, as he does not
> currently plan to package 2.8 anyway, preferring to wait for 3.0.

To quote Myon:

< Myon> RichiH, Ron: I think we are seeing a classical case of talking
cross purposes
< Myon> so let's step back and see if people will actually do stuff
< Myon> RichiH: let's accept Ron's word that he's trying people to
help. The "problem" now is that he does BTS-cleaning by closing bugs
which annoyed some people. Good faith, bad impression
< Myon> or something, I don't think there's anything left to discuss
now and here
< Myon> we just need someone (Ron and/or others) to do the work

This implies both option 1) and 2).
Option 2) was the consensus of the majority of people involved in
#debian-devel at this time, by my count.


> I don't think many people were in agreement with your proposal that this
> should be some sort of open-slather free for all. It is going to take
> quite an investment of time and effort for anyone who wants to attempt
> this to get (and more importantly, keep) it in a state where it might
> become part of the distro.

After going through my logs once more, I can say that that more people
were in favour of 'If it's not packaged, there is no way to actually
find out how it impacts Debian' and 'If someone is not willing to do
the work, someone else needs to be found', contrary to what you claim.

You imply that it is either you controlling all effort towards a goal
you do not want to achieve or an anarchistic congregation of people,
everyone commited to make things break. I resent that implication.
Especially as there are packages, created by other DDs, that work just
fine, at least for me and others I talked to.


> But anyone who thinks they are up for that, is indeed most welcome to
> get in touch with myself and the others who've shown an interest to
> date, to co-ordinate what they would like to do and how best to do it.
> I don't think having some random number of people acting in isolation
> will be sufficient to turn this into something usable. If they exist,
> they need to get together and all help each other.

As you can see in your bug reports, several people claimed to be willing to
package outside of your control.

The main problem I see is that while you state you want to want to wait
for 3.0 and not package 2.8 at all, you still claim the right to
coordinate each and every effort to do just this, as can be seen by your
reply to grand-parent mail. The only public effort in this direction I
could see is you removing all blocks from the RFP bug on wxwidgets 2.6
[1].

This has a chilling effect on potential uploaders, especially as this
situation needs something close to a NMU.


> Y'all know where to find us if you feel the itch.

Actually, at least I only know where to find you. Any other people you
are saying are working with you did not pipe up, yet.


In any case, this discussion is becoming pointless. The call for people
to upload this outside of your control has gone out, both on this list
and via private email. People will either follow it or not. I wouldi
just ask you to not try to keep others from doing the work you
repeatedly said you were unwilling to do.


If I do not reply to a potential reply by you, please do not
misunderstand this as an agreement from my side. I simply think that
everything that can be said has been said and consider further
discussion with you moot. We are unable to agree on a course of action
and that is OK. Now it is for other's to take this up, or not.


Best regards,
Richard


PS: If anyone reading this list who was not present during the
discussion wants to confirm any claims and counter-claims made, the log
file of the discussion is available by off-list request.

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?msg=195;bug=403237


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

On Thu, Feb 07, 2008 at 09:19:05AM +0100, Richard Hartmann wrote:
> On Feb 7, 2008 2:58 AM, Alex Samad <alex@samad.com.au> wrote:
>
>
> > Sorry if I have broken protocol by taking this off list. I am interested in
> > using 2.8,
> > truecrypt relies upon this.
>
> No problem, though others might have wanted the reply & link, as well.
very true

>
>
> > You talk about Bastian Kleineidam's packages which repository are these kept
> > in
> > http://apt.wxwidgets.org/ ?
>
> No, I did not test those. Bastian's are at:
> http://kampfwurst.net/debian/unstable/
Sorry for being naive but why these ones ? Who is Bastian Kleineidam

>
>
> Richard
>

--
"I am mindful not only of preserving executive powers for myself, but of predecessors as well."

- George W. Bush
01/29/2001
Washington, DC

On Feb 7, 2008 8:52 PM, Alex Samad <alex@samad.com.au> wrote:


> Sorry for being naive but why these ones ? Who is Bastian Kleineidam

He is a DD, so I chose his packages over wxwidget's on the assumption
that he is more familiar with packaging. Feel free to try the other one and
decide if obe suits you better


Richard


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

[for some previous context please see the thread starting at
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2007/12/msg00520.html]

On Sun, 3 Feb 2008 14:19:27 -0800 Steve Langasek wrote:

> Currently, the packages that are asking for wx2.8 are almost all available
> and releasable in earlier versions, built against wx2.6. Uploading wx2.8 to
> unstable implies that it's suitable for apps to build against, which by all
> accounts it is not.

As a somewhat interested person, could I please enquire about the sources
of these accounts? As far as we (wxWidgets developers) are concerned, wx2.8
is miles ahead of 2.6 and, while any non-trivial software package has bugs
and wx2.8 is no exception, is certainly not more buggy than 2.6. Moreover
the only claims to the contrary which I've ever seen came (indirectly) from
Ron Lee and we believe that he is purposefully sabotaging the inclusion of
wx in Debian as a kind of revenge for being excluded from wxWidgets
development team. So, once again, if there are any real reasons preventing
wx2.8 from being included in Debian I'd really appreciate if somebody could
finally point them out to us -- and I can promise that we'll do our best to
fix them.

And, seeing from your signature that you're both a Debian and Ubuntu
developer, I'd like to notice that Ubuntu doesn't seem to find anything
catastrophic with shipping wx2.8 which it does since quite some time. Of
course, maybe Ubuntu is wrong and Debian maintainer is correct and there
are horrible bugs in wx2.8 -- except we've never heard about them, as much
as we'd like to. So if you have any information about the details of the
accounts you mentioned, could you please post it here, to wx-dev@
lists.wxwidgets.org or me privately, as you prefer? But saying that
"by all accounts wx2.8 is unsuitable" without any supporting arguments is
just not very helpful.

Thanks in advance,
VZ


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Hi,

On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 00:55 +0100, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
> And, seeing from your signature that you're both a Debian and Ubuntu
> developer, I'd like to notice that Ubuntu doesn't seem to find
> anything
> catastrophic with shipping wx2.8 which it does since quite some time.

So Ubuntu ships wx2.8. It doesn't matter to us. The fact that Ubuntu
does ______________ is not generally considered a valid argument for
justifying that Debian does the same. Additionally, not all Ubuntu
contributors agree with all decisions made in the Ubuntu development
process.

What you should be telling us is why we _should_ be shipping wx2.8 over
wx2.6 which is considered by many to be more proven than wx2.8. I am
sure if you can come up with valid reasons to do so (especially
identifying critical apps which require wx2.8 features is useful here),
that we will be happy to provide wx2.8.

William

On Tue, 12 Feb 2008 19:07:10 -0600 William Pitcock <nenolod@sacredspiral.co.uk> wrote:

WP> On Wed, 2008-02-13 at 00:55 +0100, Vadim Zeitlin wrote:
WP> > And, seeing from your signature that you're both a Debian and Ubuntu
WP> > developer, I'd like to notice that Ubuntu doesn't seem to find
WP> > anything
WP> > catastrophic with shipping wx2.8 which it does since quite some time.
WP>
WP> So Ubuntu ships wx2.8. It doesn't matter to us. The fact that Ubuntu
WP> does ______________ is not generally considered a valid argument for
WP> justifying that Debian does the same.

Yes, I know this and it was never my intention to imply that this alone
was sufficient. But it did, and still does, sound strange to me that Ubuntu
people didn't find any of those apparently numerous and unavoidable fatal
bugs which wx2.8 is so full of.

WP> What you should be telling us is why we should be shipping wx2.8 over
WP> wx2.6 which is considered by many to be more proven than wx2.8.

Could we please bring any facts in this discussion? I replied to a message
stating, without any supporting arguments, that wx2.8 was unsuitable to be
used. You make a less strong but still fairly significant claim that wx2.6
is considered by many to be better than wx2.8. Could you please tell who
those "many" are and why do "they" consider this?

It's very difficult to prove that you're innocent when you don't know what
do you stand accused of.


WP> I am sure if you can come up with valid reasons to do so (especially
WP> identifying critical apps which require wx2.8 features is useful here),
WP> that we will be happy to provide wx2.8.

I don't know how critical these apps are but several of them have been
mentioned previously by different people. In particular, if you appreciate
using Debian as a development platform, the fact that CodeBlocks can't be
built on it is IMHO a pretty critical problem.

And even if a program doesn't require wx2.8 it will still work better with
it than with wx2.6. Moreover, wx2.6 is officially unmaintained since 1.5
years (and in practice for longer) and any future bug fixes will be done
only in wx2.8.

But more generally I thought that it was in the order of things for old
versions of programs and libraries to be replaced with newer ones in newer
Debian releases. I didn't realize there was a need to provide a special
argument for the upgrade, I rather thought that the problem was that wx2.8
was (erroneously and, AFAICS, due to the efforts of one and single person)
deemed to be too broken to be upgraded to in spite of numerous requests
here and in the BTS to do it. If this is not the case I don't think I can
provide an argument more compelling than the ones already expressed before.

So, once again, I can only propose to help to bring wx2.8 to Debian. If
this is deemed to be unnecessary -- so be it. I'd just appreciate if the
decision not to include wx2.8 in Debian could be formulated as being due to
lack of reasons to upgrade and not as being due to "wx2.8 being totally
unsuitable for application development" which is completely slanderous but
unfortunately carries a lot of weight when it comes from the official wx
Debian maintainer.

Thanks,
VZ


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Vadim Zeitlin <vadim@wxwidgets.org> writes:
> if you appreciate using Debian as a development platform, the fact
> that CodeBlocks can't be built on it is IMHO a pretty critical
> problem.

Why?

-Miles

--
Love is a snowmobile racing across the tundra. Suddenly it flips over,
pinning you underneath. At night the ice weasels come. --Nietzsche


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Miles Bader <miles.bader <at> necel.com> writes:
> Vadim Zeitlin <vadim <at> wxwidgets.org> writes:
> > if you appreciate using Debian as a development platform, the fact
> > that CodeBlocks can't be built on it is IMHO a pretty critical
> > problem.
>
> Why?

Maybe "because not being able to build" and "development platform" don't go so
well together?

Differently put, why do you think that NOT having current versions of a popular
library, here wxwidgets in version 2.8, is a feature and not a bug?

Dirk


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Dirk Eddelbuettel <edd@debian.org> writes:
>> > if you appreciate using Debian as a development platform, the fact
>> > that CodeBlocks can't be built on it is IMHO a pretty critical
>> > problem.
>>
>> Why?
>
> Maybe "because not being able to build" and "development platform" don't go so
> well together?
>
> Differently put, why do you think that NOT having current versions of a popular
> library, here wxwidgets in version 2.8, is a feature and not a bug?

I don't. I'm just questioning the (apparent) assertion that the
presence or lack of "CodeBlocks" is "critical" to those who "appreciate
using Debian as a development platform". Surely 99% of people who do
development on Debian haven't even _heard_ of CodeBlocks.

-Miles

--
Patience, n. A minor form of despair, disguised as a virtue.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org