[João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>]

On 22/11/23 14:39, João Valverde wrote:

On 22/11/23 13:12, Pascal Quantin wrote:

Hi Joao,

Le mer. 22 nov. 2023 à 14:01, João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> a écrit :

You are free to participate in the discussion or not. But I really don't care to wait for the new committee that is pretty much exactly the same as the old committee, as far as I can tell.

Anyway silence is another Wireshark project classic. At least you tried to bring something to the debate, so thank you for that, at least.

It seems like the discussion is shifting away from the initial goal. I don't think aggression/criticism/sarcasm brings anything to the debate, so I would prefer to keep a constructive exchange between whoever feels involved in the subject. I personally have never used the Debian scripts, but I did not consider updating the symbols list as being a really time consuming task (and I did it numerous times in the past), so I do not have an opinion on whether the current status quo is good or bad.

Balint's initial email was to collect some feedback regarding whether the scripts are being used or not. Anders provided the first feedback, let's see if others do (with the hope that they are monitoring this list...).

There are a myriad issues I have touched upon. To recap, in my opinion, if we want to provide public shared libraries (libwireshark, wiretap, wsutil... for what I don't know) we should do a better job of that collectively as a project. If we don't want to do that we should kill the Debian package inanity.

A third alternative is just to keep the status quo and I'll try to avoid this subject entirely because of how much it bothers me to just ignore all these technical issues.

    To bring it back to the original issue, I personally disagree with
    moving the Debian assets into the packaging subdir, although I
    sympathize with the reasons of course, and it doesn't bother me in
    the slightest because I don't use it.
    
    Many if not all Debian tools expect a top dir debian directory. And
    I totally understand Debian not trying to accommodate something that
    is not a relevant use-case for the Debian system (like upstream
    having different ideas of what a filesystem layout should be).
    
    Moving it just makes using the Debian package less practical and
    useful than it already is.

Best regards,

Pascal.

On 22/11/23 11:45, Roland Knall wrote:

Hi

I would recommend that we bring this topic before the technical steering committee. As of right now, that committee needs to be formed in January and this topic is exactly why we are going to have the committee in the first place. The process is in the final steps and should be finished by the end of the year anyway.

I do not think that further discussing this issue is actually beneficial for the long term resolution of this situation. Both sides have valid arguments and good pointers and I would suggest as soon as the committee has taken up the topic we collectively create a single mission statement as suggested by Joao above. Until then, personally I will refrain from discussing this further, as I have said everything there is to say from my perspective.

Do you agree Gerald?

kind regards

Roland

Am Mi., 22. Nov. 2023 um 12:36 Uhr schrieb João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>:

Maybe you´d like to volunteer to maintain the Wireshark Debian assets? Since you've got the experience and actually use it?

There are loads of lintian warnings waiting to be fixed, or there were until recently. Maybe you'd like to start there, and be more active staying on top of the all-important symbol lists. Just a thought.

On 21/11/23 15:00, Anders Broman wrote:

Hi,

I found it useful to be able to do Debian packages easily to provide internal installation packages and even ppa for Ubuntu. 

So I have been using the Debian build system.

Best regards 

Anders

Den tis 21 nov. 2023 15:48Roland Knall <rknall@xxxxxxxxx> skrev:

As mentioned on the ticket - just putting it here as well - I am against dropping packaging/debian. But I am for having it underneath packaging, and not in the main directory, which is what the original change was about. I respect Joao's opinion as well as yours Balint. In this case here I think, we can provide assistance for future implementors and as a starting point, by keeping the directory underneath packaging/debian. 

just my thoughts

Roland

Am Di., 21. Nov. 2023 um 15:28 Uhr schrieb Bálint Réczey <balint@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>:

Hi All,

João shared his opinion about the project's commitment to maintain the
packaging/debian/ in the project's repository:

https://gitlab.com/wireshark/wireshark/-/commit/79da670bd1b4f91eebee5c96b19eaf1f33c94777#note_1656501952

I believe the current practice is reasonable and beneficial enough for
many parties to warrant the work, but I could be wrong.

Probably the most important question is if there is anyone relying on
the packaging scripts there. If you are, please speak up otherwise the
directory may be dropped.

Comments are welcome.

Cheers,
Balint
___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe

___________________________________________________________________________
Sent via:    Wireshark-dev mailing list <wireshark-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Archives:    https://www.wireshark.org/lists/wireshark-dev
Unsubscribe: https://www.wireshark.org/mailman/options/wireshark-dev
             mailto:wireshark-dev-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxx?subject=unsubscribe