[Mud-builder-users] upstream developers and current maintainers
andrew at bleb.org
Wed Jan 31 01:15:05 EET 2007
On 1/26/07, Kees Jongenburger <kees.jongenburger at gmail.com> wrote:
> I have some trouble with mud on a social level and would like us
> to find a solution.
Sorry for the delay in replying to this. I've been trying to think it
through, but decided to just barge in and see what other people say.
> The way mud is currently working it would be best if everybody
> would put there mud's into svn and different builds would be
> generatedTand uploaded. this gives some social problems as it is
> harder for a developer to get "credits" for his / her porting.
Yep, this is why I'm keen the AUTHORS file to be up-to-date with who's
done the porting of a package and for lots of activity on the mailing
> For a developer to be able to get credits the system would need to
> work differently the system there should be a "build request queue" ,
> and package builds and uploads must be done on a package level. From
> my point of view the gain of mud is that it is easy , and people can
> join the effort with minimal setup (no need for garage etc).
Indeed, but this defeats the key purpose of mud which is to make it
easier for people to port the simple stuff, so they can gain some
experience and then contribute some really big, exciting, *new* stuff
> perhaps the different project mud have their own .mud file and we
> should contribute then?
Sorry, could you clarify?
> what would a standard message be when "we" port an application to mud?
If there's no Maemo package already, a quick note to the upstream
author would probably be a good idea. Something like:
You may be aware of the Nokia 770 and N800 Internet Tablets,
running a version of Linux called "Maemo".
This is just a quick note to say we've compiled and packaged
$PACKAGE for Maemo devices using the MUD auto-builder. This
should make it relatively easy for us to keep the package
up-to-date with your upstream changes.
The package and patch for $PACKAGE can be seen in our
Subversion. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to
contact me or ask on the mailing list.
> what would the policy be when we port a package that already has a
> maintainer? I don't want to spend day's trying to convice people to use
> mud but I don't want to wait for them to create updated packages.
A good question. I'd say touch base with them *before* starting the
port, asking if they mind; can they share the sources etc:
I've seen your $PACKAGE port to Maemo and though I'd try to add it
to the MUD auto-builder. This would allow the Maemo-specific
packaging to be done automatically, the upstream source to be
tracked and it automatically added to the Maemo Extras repository
when it is updated.
I was wondering if you'd mind me doing this packaging, or whether
you'd like to take a look? Producing a MUD package is straight
forward and means you can concentrate on porting stuff, rather
than producing packages.
If you don't mind me adding the package, did you patch the
package at all for Maemo? If so, would you mind sharing the patch?
Both of these suggestions are initial drafts, and thoughts off the top
of my head - comments *very* welcome.
> When can we expect the first upload to the repositories?
My GPG key has now been accepted, so I'm planning on submitting the
first packages tomorrow morning. Currently planning on the simple
ones, a provisional list is:
I'll do these manually so I can better familiarise myself with the
process before attempting the automatisation.
Andrew Flegg -- mailto:andrew at bleb.org | http://www.bleb.org/
More information about the Mud-builder-users