THRIFT-71 - Debian Packaging

[Chris Goffinet <go...@digg.com>]

Can we get this merged into the upcoming release (0.1) ?

---
Chris Goffinet
goffinet@digg.com

Re: THRIFT-71 - Debian Packaging

[Todd Lipcon <tl...@gmail.com>]

On Tue, May 5, 2009 at 11:13 AM, Esteve Fernandez <es...@sindominio.net>wrote:

> On Tuesday 05 May 2009 19:12:05 Michael Greene wrote:
> > I would also like this, although I'm not sure it's necessary for 0.1.
> > As long as the tarball is correct for 0.1, I would think we could
> > still package it for the various distributions after-the-fact.
>
> We don't need to merge it for 0.1, as you said, we could simply generate
> packages for Thrift after we roll 0.1
>
> > I'm not sure if the differences between Esteve and Todd's work have
> > been resolved, but there's also Eric Evans's recent work:
> > http://git.debian.org/?p=users/eevans/thrift.git;a=summary
> >
> > Esteve, Todd, and Eric: can you comment on the state of your packaging
> > and whether the differences between your packages can be merged or
> > otherwise resolved?
>
> Which is the best packaging? Mine, of course! :-)
>

My work and Esteve's are pretty much merged at this point. I made a couple
of changes last week after we ivy-ified the Java lib, which I'll post to the
JIRA momentarily.


>
> Not really, but it's already being used by some people and it's been "in
> the
> wild" for a while. I feel a bit uneasy having two separate efforts,
> especially given that upstream (i.e. us) has been working on it for a while
> (THRIFT-71 was filed in July the 9th), THRIFT-71 already has support for
> C++,
> Java, Ruby, Perl, Python, C# and Erlang, and works with Ubuntu Hardy and
> Debian Lenny.
>

My other difference is that I've disabled the C# builds in order to
successfully build on Debian Etch, which was a requirement for my packages.

-Todd

Re: THRIFT-71 - Debian Packaging

[Esteve Fernandez <es...@sindominio.net>]

On Tuesday 05 May 2009 19:12:05 Michael Greene wrote:
> I would also like this, although I'm not sure it's necessary for 0.1.
> As long as the tarball is correct for 0.1, I would think we could
> still package it for the various distributions after-the-fact.

We don't need to merge it for 0.1, as you said, we could simply generate 
packages for Thrift after we roll 0.1

> I'm not sure if the differences between Esteve and Todd's work have
> been resolved, but there's also Eric Evans's recent work:
> http://git.debian.org/?p=users/eevans/thrift.git;a=summary
>
> Esteve, Todd, and Eric: can you comment on the state of your packaging
> and whether the differences between your packages can be merged or
> otherwise resolved?

Which is the best packaging? Mine, of course! :-)

Not really, but it's already being used by some people and it's been "in the 
wild" for a while. I feel a bit uneasy having two separate efforts, 
especially given that upstream (i.e. us) has been working on it for a while 
(THRIFT-71 was filed in July the 9th), THRIFT-71 already has support for C++, 
Java, Ruby, Perl, Python, C# and Erlang, and works with Ubuntu Hardy and 
Debian Lenny.

That being said, I'd love to see a merge between Eric's and our work, and 
having a seal of approval by a Debian developer would be great :-)

Cheers.

Re: THRIFT-71 - Debian Packaging

[Eric Evans <ee...@sym-link.com>]

[ Michael Greene ]
> I would also like this, although I'm not sure it's necessary for 0.1.
> As long as the tarball is correct for 0.1, I would think we could
> still package it for the various distributions after-the-fact.
> 
> I'm not sure if the differences between Esteve and Todd's work have
> been resolved, but there's also Eric Evans's recent work:
> http://git.debian.org/?p=users/eevans/thrift.git;a=summary
> 
> Esteve, Todd, and Eric: can you comment on the state of your packaging
> and whether the differences between your packages can be merged or
> otherwise resolved?

I guess I'm 65-70% of the way there. There are a couple more binary
packages I'd like to add (php and erlang), and there are varying degrees
of work still needed for the packages that are there (quite a bit more
for libthrift-cil for example).

I'd love to see these efforts merged. That being said, my interest lies
in having Thrift added to Debian, which requires quite a bit more than
simply putting things into a format that dpkg understands. I gather
from the discussions here that most people are happy with the patches
attached to THRIFT-71, I'm not sure Esteve and Todd will be up for the
extra pedantry. :)

-- 
Eric Evans
eevans@sym-link.com

Re: THRIFT-71 - Debian Packaging

[Michael Greene <mi...@gmail.com>]

I would also like this, although I'm not sure it's necessary for 0.1.
As long as the tarball is correct for 0.1, I would think we could
still package it for the various distributions after-the-fact.

I'm not sure if the differences between Esteve and Todd's work have
been resolved, but there's also Eric Evans's recent work:
http://git.debian.org/?p=users/eevans/thrift.git;a=summary

Esteve, Todd, and Eric: can you comment on the state of your packaging
and whether the differences between your packages can be merged or
otherwise resolved?

Michael

Chris Goffinet <go...@digg.com> wrote:
> Can we get this merged into the upcoming release (0.1) ?