On 2023. Dec 21., Thu at 12:02, João Valverde <
j@xxxxxx> wrote:
On 20/12/23 23:20, Anders Broman wrote:
> Hi,
> To me it is a useful feature to be able to easily build .deb packages
> and make repos to easily update and maintain wireshark across servers.
> This is a feature I vote for us to keep regardless of any opinion on
> how Debian build their packages. Maybe a Debian mailing list is a
> better place to discuss their build system?
I don't know what that has anything to do with what I said below but
that is totally fine. I'm not against a Debian package. I'm against
mirroring Debian in this project. I note you
The package is not an exact mirror of the one in Debian. I make changes in Debian first targeting Debian unstable that has the latest packages and I follow the latest best practices there.
The packaging scripts here target the broadest set of supported Debian an Ubuntu releases to help installing it anywhere.
A good example is that Wireshark in unstable builds wit Qt6, while the Debian scripts here use Qt5.
I cherry pick changes which I believe to be useful here. I noticed that others updated build dependencies here earlier sometimes as Wireshark started supporting building with them in master and I’m thankful for that. Also thanks for other packaging related fixes.
I already explained in this thread why the package and file layout are the same here as in Debian.
Cheers,
Balint
already asked me twice how
the package could be made better, I answered both times (IMO) and you
never replied back.
> Just my 2 cents
> Anders
>
> Den ons 20 dec. 2023 23:49João Valverde <j@xxxxxx> skrev:
>
>
>
> On 20/12/23 22:35, Roland Knall wrote:
> >
> >> Am 20.12.2023 um 22:43 schrieb João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 20/12/23 21:21, Roland Knall wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>> Am 20.12.2023 um 22:02 schrieb João Valverde <j@xxxxxx>:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 20/12/23 20:52, Roland Knall wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> So people can link to our libraries to write other projets?
> And expect it to work reliably? That is news to me. I have made
> this question many times over the years but I guess I was not
> worthy of a clear answer until now.
> >>>>>
> >>> I am not saying they should do it or that I appreciate it
> happening. All I am saying is that it happens and is happening and
> we did not put a stop to it in time. Should they expect it to be
> reliable? Of course not as I answered also in other threads on
> this matter. But at the same time I see no point in having them
> hit a wall face on, rather work in such cases where we know about
> it, to ensure them moving to a saner approach.
> >> What?! I'm back to confused... So you don't like the situation,
> you say. Here's a thought.. maybe if Debian didn't publish system
> libraries in our name with these stupid symbol lists then people
> wouldn't get the crazy idea they could use these libraries that
> were published for this exact purpose and build their own software
> on top of it and expect it to work reliable and not break every
> other release, like most other non-Wireshark Debian libraries.
> >>
> >> I wonder what could be done about that. I guess Debian would
> get that clue pretty darn quick if we weren't mirroring their
> broken setup in our repository, thereby sanctioning it.
> >>
> >> I don't know, call me crazy. Or did I misunderstand again? Sure
> seems complicated to get my head around this for such a simple
> topic as is software release and distribution.
> > Just a thought, libvirt was not created by debian but RedHat so
> the state of debian packaging has nothing to do with them. Debians
> package is merely moving their approach onto Debian, but the
> decision to implement libvirts plugin in such a way had been done
> by RedHats folks.
>
> And what such way is that?! I don't even know why libvirt keeps
> coming
> up in this discussion. They wrote a dissector plugin. That's
> great. Good
> for them. I don't upstream many of my plugins into Wireshark either.
> This is something so banal that I am honestly confused why libvirt
> keeps
> coming up as a big boogaloo in this discussion.
>
> I ask again in all sincerity, because I could be misunderstanding,
> what
> is the difficulty created by the libvirt plugin and what does that
> have
> to do with Debian packaging?
>
>
> >>
> ___________________________________________________________________________
> >> 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