Community Packages

Please read this before reporting a bug:
http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/Reporting_Bug_Guidelines

Do NOT report bugs when a package is just outdated, or it is in Unsupported. Use the 'flag out of date' link on the package page, or the Mailing List.

REPEAT: Do NOT report bugs for outdated packages!
Tasklist

FS#39756 - [quassel-client] Flawed packaging

Attached to Project: Community Packages
Opened by Fredrik Haikarainen (Haikarainen) - Saturday, 05 April 2014, 14:00 GMT
Last edited by Jaroslav Lichtblau (Dragonlord) - Wednesday, 08 October 2014, 14:20 GMT
Task Type Bug Report
Category Packages
Status Closed
Assigned To Vesa Kaihlavirta (vegai)
Jaroslav Lichtblau (Dragonlord)
Architecture All
Severity Low
Priority Normal
Reported Version
Due in Version Undecided
Due Date Undecided
Percent Complete 100%
Votes 1
Private No

Details

Description: Since Quassel can come in 2 variations, monolithic or split up into a client and a core, so by standard logic it should have 3 packages; quassel-monolithic (or likewise), quassel-core and quassel-client. Currently the packages available are quassel-core and quassel-client, the latter provides both the monolithic client and the stand-alone client, which I feel do not comply with Arch's philosophy of minimalism/being lightweight and the "you only get what you ask for" mentality of the userbase. It's also worth to mention that this method of packaging is confusing with the quassel-client's description is as follows: "Qt4 IRC client with a separated core - client only", which implies the monolithic client would not be provided here.

I feel that a packaging method for quassel should have these 3 options (as stated above):
1. The core, as it is now in quassel-core
2. The stand-alone client, in quassel-client
3. The monolithic client (no need for separate core), in quassel-monolithic (or likewise)

This would completely remove all of the current confusion, and make the options you get more reasonable and slipstreamed towards ArchLinux's philosophy. Another option would be to at least fix the description of the quassel-client package, although I personally feel the other solution would be better.
This task depends upon

Closed by  Jaroslav Lichtblau (Dragonlord)
Wednesday, 08 October 2014, 14:20 GMT
Reason for closing:  Implemented
Additional comments about closing:  monolithic part is now split into quassel-monolithic package
Comment by Fredrik Haikarainen (Haikarainen) - Saturday, 05 April 2014, 14:01 GMT
It's also worth to mention that this report also affects quassel-core, please read description for explanation.
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Saturday, 05 April 2014, 15:49 GMT
So...your entire report can be summed up as -DWANT_MONO=ON needs to be changed to OFF for the client build?
Comment by Fredrik Haikarainen (Haikarainen) - Saturday, 05 April 2014, 17:47 GMT
Not quite, if you read the details you'll see that I think that 3 packages would be better. 1 for the monolithic client, 1 for a standalone client (and only that), and 1 for the core.
Comment by Doug Newgard (Scimmia) - Saturday, 05 April 2014, 18:02 GMT
Unless the monolithic build has something different than installing both the client and the core, there's no reason for it. Duplicate packages in the repos are a bad thing.
Comment by Fredrik Haikarainen (Haikarainen) - Saturday, 05 April 2014, 18:07 GMT
There wont be duplicate packages. Currently the client (quassel-client) provides 2 binaries; 1 for the monolithic client, and 1 for a standalone client. In the same package. Separating them into 2 different packages would be something good and something more streamlined to the Arch philosophy. Also I wont have to have 2 clients installed when I'm just going to use one.

At least fix the description if you're too lazy to do it properly, because right now the quassel-client description states that it only includes a standalone client, and it is extremely confusing (especially since the wiki had no information on quassel before I filed this report and started one).

EDIT: Sorry, I thought Doug was the one assigned.
Comment by Fredrik Haikarainen (Haikarainen) - Saturday, 05 April 2014, 18:15 GMT
Perhaps even split it up in 4, with a quassel-base or quassel-client-base ? That way you get no duplicate files.

Loading...