FS#52206 - [prosody] Stop using beta/rc source for regular/production package
Attached to Project:
Community Packages
Opened by Jens G (Thah) - Monday, 19 December 2016, 09:00 GMT
Last edited by Sergej Pupykin (sergej) - Monday, 02 October 2017, 17:09 GMT
Opened by Jens G (Thah) - Monday, 19 December 2016, 09:00 GMT
Last edited by Sergej Pupykin (sergej) - Monday, 02 October 2017, 17:09 GMT
|
Details
Description:
The current stable and actively maintained (!) branch is the 0.9 branch: (https://hg.prosody.im/) The current stable release is rev. 0.9.12 / changeset 2a7b52437167 (https://hg.prosody.im/0.9/tags) and can be retrieved e.g. at https://hg.prosody.im/0.9/archive/0.9.12.tar.gz; no need to mess with a VCS. Just changing the package description (done in v0.10.r7656+.296543556065+) doesn't make it OK. It's still the same issue as If you want to distribute a beta/rc version, please create a dedicated package in -testing or the AUR with a corresponding Conflicts line and leave the production package alone. Being a leading edge distribution should not mean using beta versions for no good reason unless there is a problem like a severe bug or an unmaintained stable version. A distribution consisting of beta packages would be practically unusable. There usually is a reason why upstream considers a version "not-stable". Additional info: * package version(s) 0.10.r7717+.9c8eb0239eef+-1 |
This task depends upon
This reminds me of the darktable fiasco, you should reconsider your approach
FS#48011orFS#51834.No. It is not the same. These 2 bugs were mistake. prosody was intentionally switched to hg.
Prosody depends on lua-socket which has no stable releases. I did not remember details how it become prosody-hg, but I suggest 2 options to resolve this issue:
- we leave it as is (but I fix it making reproducible build) and you report particular prosody issue if it exists
- you suggest "stable" versions of prosody and its deps which have no critical issues and builds more-or-less smoothly.
I think you pay too much attention to word "stable". I use prosody for a few years and it works well enough.
We have remmina with deps which are rc/git versions and many other similar packages.
Is it new rule that disallows putting beta/rc/devel versions to community or I miss something?
We encounter this issue over and over and over again, like ownclound and many others. Maybe put more quality in your work?
some packages like remmina and wanderlust have no "stable" releases at all.
> ownclound and many others
Owncloud and darktable. Not sure if there were many others.
Let's be constructive:
1. there is no known issues with current prosody package
2. some people wants stable prosody
3. some people wants rc (I get much enough out-of-date requests asking to update some package to rc)
4. Downgrading from 0.10 to 0.9 needs testing
One of possible solutions is:
downgrade prosody to 0.9, put prosody-hg to community (if there is file format incompatibility announce it in post-upgrade message)
if they want RC they can use the -hg package, nobody holds them back. use the latest stable release, this is a very active project.
yes. downgrade it and no prosody-hg in community, if you want a -hg version install from AUR what your problem.
why not?
just stop it, there is no need to pull in a totally different development version while this is still very active.
Obviously it would still not be prosody-hg as that would be a VCS package.
I am looking for best solution. Let's see:
1) 0.10 is not development branch. Development is trunk, 0.10 is "future stable".
2) 0.10 has unique feature such as message carbons, 0.9 does not have it.
Solution you suggest needs manual interaction for all uses. Downgrading or switching to aur/prosody-hg.
Solution I suggest needs manual interaction only for users who really wants to downgrade for some practical or some kind of religious reasons.
I wouldn't mind backporting commits from 0.9, but 0.10 seems too much.
Note that message carbons are also available for 0.9. It's just shipped by default with 0.10.
FS#52931(closed as duplicate but another issue imo), this package isn’t even using 0.10 currently but trunk, which as explained at https://prosody.im/files/branches_explained.png is even further in development, with features that won’t be part of 0.10 once it gets released.Downgrading this package from trunk to 0.10 is advised.
FS#52931, thanks!https://prosody.im/downloads/source/ for some time. The old 0.9.x PKGBUILD should be easy to adapt.
As for downgrading: Yes, I ran into config file compatibility issues when downgrading from 0.10 to 0.9.12.
IIRC v0.10 accepted a 0.9 config but not vice versa. Luckily, I saved the 0.9 config file when trying to get
the 0.10 version to work. For users who have a 0.9 config file backup (we all DO backup /etc, right?)
downgrading to v0.9.12 should be manageable.
- revert/remove the mercurial branch crap
- use the 0.10 tarball including the signature https://prosody.im/downloads/source/prosody-0.10.0.tar.gz.asc
PS: why does it provide/conflict on itself?