I've looked into setting up an Ubuntu PPA, and it seems to require that the packages be built on the Launchpad server; that looks like more complication than we probably want, so my sense is that a locally-managed repo would be the best option. I also remember a detailed discussion to decide which of the packages we wanted to keep. The outcome appears to be that we no longer build a whole set of packages that were originally being built -- compare this list: http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/teideb/ to this: http://teijenkins.hcmc.uvic.ca/job/TEIP5/lastSuccessfulBuild/artifact/P5/ Cheers, Martin On 2016-11-28 11:10 AM, Martin Holmes wrote:
Hi Lou,
Sorry you think I'm just making difficulties; I was just trying to remember the conversation that happened around this. It wasn't my ticket -- Stefan has it, and Peter's last comment reflects what I remember.
https://github.com/TEIC/TEI/issues/1441
Another option might be for a single individual who's enthusiastic about it to set up an Ubuntu PPA. That's less official and perhaps a good interim solution.
Cheers, Martin
On 2016-11-28 10:59 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
OK, let me put this another way.
We are about to do another release, a major one. It won't be available as a debian package unless someone steps up able and willing to assume the weighty responsibility of being a debian release expert. Do we care? Debian users will, especially since we went to the trouble of asking their opinion last year. I care, because I want to be able to tell Ubuntu peeps that they can just grab the tei-stylesheet package (for example) and get moving, without having to explain how to install it from Github.
If I didn't know you better Martin, I'd think you were just making difficulties for the sake of it. Of course we need a good long term solution, and yes, it would be very nice if we could build all the components of the release on one machine which we (sort of) own. But we're not going to be there for a wee while yet. And this release is going to happen in a week or two. Is it going to be the first one with no debian support at all or (hopefully) the last one we have had to cobble together using the good will of one or two council members?
On 28/11/16 18:41, Martin Holmes wrote:
This is an overview of what would be required:
https://wiki.debian.org/SettingUpSignedAptRepositoryWithReprepro
The key bit, I think, is that "in general, you should run [gpg --gen-key] on the computer hosting the apt repository, as the user that will sign the packages". If I understand that correctly, then either a single individual with control over their own server would end up volunteering to be the long-term maintainer of the deb packages (which was the situation with Sebastian), or a generic user on a TEI server (presumably the "tei" user on tei-c.org) would do it, so that the update/release duties could be passed from person to person over time.
That's why we wanted to build/release on tei-c. If anyone remembers differently, please correct me.
Cheers, Martin
On 2016-11-28 09:53 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
[apologies for the preceding aborted message]
Thanks for the quick response Martin.
It doesn't seem to me that "backburnering" is a very desirable state of affairs. At the very least http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/teideb/ needs to be updated with a warning if it is not currently serving up current versions of the packages.
If Stefan was fingered as DPM, he will need replacing THIS MONTH, as he is no longer active on Council.
I don't see what the possibility or otherwise of building on tei-c.org has to do with it. We don't worry about that when building other TEI products: they get built where they get built. The issue here is where they are going to be served from. You don't need saxon to run a debian repo sfaik ! Someone suggested we could set up a PPA (whatever that is) on github quite easily, if I recall aright.
Or we should just say, sorry we don't do that anymore and stand by for some bad vibes.
On 28/11/16 17:38, Martin Holmes wrote:
As far as I recall, this is the situation:
The debs were always released by Sebastian, and signed with his personal key. IIRC James now has access to that key and could conceivably sign packages, but I think everyone agreed that would be a bad idea.
Therefore there was a plan for someone else to take over signing and releasing the packages, and Stefan was looking into this the last time I heard anything about it.
This was also partly tied up with the question of whether we should build things on tei-c.org, and that issue is tangled up with the problem of the version of Saxon on tei-c being too old for building purposes, but required IIRC for the existing CMS system; so the discussion may have been back-burnered pending the replacement of the CMS with something more modern.
Cheers, Martin
On 2016-11-28 09:33 AM, Lou Burnard wrote:
About a year ago, Martin H did a Community Consultation thing about whether or not we should continue to distribute debian packaged versions of at least some parts of the TEI product line.
The response was yes we should. (I simplify). But I can't find any evidence of what happened thereafter. Step 15 of TCW22 suggests we are probably still building packages as part of the release but I don't believe they are necessarily getting put anywhere people can get at them.
(Step 15 reads "Inform the Debian Package Maintainer of the new release Note: This step may change as we review Debian Package Creation The Debian repository can only be updated by its maintainers, so let the Debian Package Maintainer know that your release is done, so they can grab the new packages and add them to the repository. ")
I don't know who the DPM is, nor what state we are in as regards reviewing DPC.
So who is the DPM? The notes at http://tei.oucs.ox.ac.uk/teideb/ though very precise and helpful surely need some updating.