[opensuse-packaging] Split project to separate "-standalone", "-plugin" and "-common" packages .
Hi, I'm building some audio software, such a synths and filters in OBS (https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:kill_it:JUCE). During this process we discuss that project should be split in separate packages: synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - the standalone app synthesizer-vst-01.x86_64.rpm - vst plugin lv2-synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - same but lv2 synthesizer-common-01.noarch.rpm - this should contains some common files, such a skins, presets etc, if they exists. And LICENSE and README files. Is it ok with openSUSE packaging guidelines? If yes: For me is unclear what is openSUSE policy for LICENSE (or maybe README) files, should it be in synthesizer-common-01.noarch.rpm mandatory, and this rpm must be required for all binary rpms (AFAIK this is Debian behavior). Or it just enough to put it in "main" synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Monday 2019-10-14 02:42, Konstantin Voinov wrote:
Hi,
I'm building some audio software, such a synths and filters in OBS (https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:kill_it:JUCE). During this process we discuss that project should be split in separate packages:
synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - the standalone app synthesizer-vst-01.x86_64.rpm - vst plugin lv2-synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - same but lv2 synthesizer-common-01.noarch.rpm - this should contains some common files, such a skins, presets etc, if they exists. And LICENSE and README files.
Is it ok with openSUSE packaging guidelines?
You have a lot of freedom on how to organize packages and spec files. If something is unspecified, you can basically exploit the fact. openSUSE:Factory review will comment if there is something "overly wrong", and someone may even update the documentation if it happens too often. Right now, I cannot even find a source package by the name "synthesizer", and I do not find a binary package by that name in your home:kill_it:JUCE project either, which suggests it is not present at all. Packages should be called by their upstream name. Unless "synthesizer" really is, it seems unfitting for its genericness though. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Ok, thanks, I will think what is preferable. By "synthesizer" I mean some abstract package, for example: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:kill_it:JUCE/OB-Xd On 2019-10-14 18:54, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Monday 2019-10-14 02:42, Konstantin Voinov wrote:
Hi,
I'm building some audio software, such a synths and filters in OBS (https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:kill_it:JUCE). During this process we discuss that project should be split in separate packages:
synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - the standalone app synthesizer-vst-01.x86_64.rpm - vst plugin lv2-synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - same but lv2 synthesizer-common-01.noarch.rpm - this should contains some common files, such a skins, presets etc, if they exists. And LICENSE and README files.
Is it ok with openSUSE packaging guidelines?
You have a lot of freedom on how to organize packages and spec files. If something is unspecified, you can basically exploit the fact.
openSUSE:Factory review will comment if there is something "overly wrong", and someone may even update the documentation if it happens too often.
Right now, I cannot even find a source package by the name "synthesizer", and I do not find a binary package by that name in your home:kill_it:JUCE project either, which suggests it is not present at all.
Packages should be called by their upstream name. Unless "synthesizer" really is, it seems unfitting for its genericness though. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Monday 2019-10-14 11:57, Konstantin Voinov wrote:
By "synthesizer" I mean some abstract package, for example: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:kill_it:JUCE/OB-Xd
I'm building some audio software, such a synths and filters in OBS (https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:kill_it:JUCE). During this process we discuss that project should be split in separate packages:
synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - the standalone app [OB-Xd] synthesizer-vst-01.x86_64.rpm - vst plugin [OB-Xd-vst] lv2-synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - same but lv2 [lv2-OB-Xd]
The last part seems unusual. Considering OB-Xd-vst, should the lv2 plugin not be OB-Xd-lv2 rather than lv2-OB-Xd? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Yes and no: zypper se lv2 says that most packages named lv2-somepluginname and zypper se vst says contrariwise, all packages are somepluginname-vst that is strange, I agree On 2019-10-14 21:04, Jan Engelhardt wrote:
On Monday 2019-10-14 11:57, Konstantin Voinov wrote:
By "synthesizer" I mean some abstract package, for example: https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:kill_it:JUCE/OB-Xd
I'm building some audio software, such a synths and filters in OBS (https://build.opensuse.org/package/show/home:kill_it:JUCE). During this process we discuss that project should be split in separate packages:
synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - the standalone app [OB-Xd] synthesizer-vst-01.x86_64.rpm - vst plugin [OB-Xd-vst] lv2-synthesizer-01.x86_64.rpm - same but lv2 [lv2-OB-Xd]
The last part seems unusual. Considering OB-Xd-vst, should the lv2 plugin not be OB-Xd-lv2 rather than lv2-OB-Xd? -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2019, 13:21:36 CEST schrieb Konstantin Voinov:
Yes and no: zypper se lv2 says that most packages named lv2-somepluginname and zypper se vst says contrariwise, all packages are somepluginname-vst
that is strange, I agree
You probably shouldn't follow this silly pattern. Pete -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
On Monday 2019-10-14 17:38, Hans-Peter Jansen wrote:
Am Montag, 14. Oktober 2019, 13:21:36 CEST schrieb Konstantin Voinov:
Yes and no: zypper se lv2 says that most packages named lv2-somepluginname and zypper se vst says contrariwise, all packages are somepluginname-vst
that is strange, I agree
You probably shouldn't follow this silly pattern.
Or, in more encouraging terms: "We'd welcome a cleanup in this area" -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Bringing things in order would be nice. I've got reply from Fabio Pesari (ozu), the maintainer of http://geekosdaw.tuxfamily.org - project, that involved with my repo:
For most openSUSE package, the convention is
program-subprogram
For example: emacs-el, python2-numpy, gimp-gap
Here is the same situation - LV2 is a program, a library.
On openSUSE official repos and on Fedora, the convention for lv2 packages it to put lv2- first, and this convention is consistent with other packages.
Can we follow it 100% and switch VSTs to it, so that they are named vst-pluginame?
And zypper se dssi ladspa confirms, that common rule is program-suprogram, so our decisions is to name packages in this way, and for vst-* too. -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
Hi again, Is there any objections against we (geeckos:daw maintainers) start naming packages with lv2-*, ladspa-*, dssi-* and vst-*? Thus we will not be forced to rename packages back again, when gonna trying to pull them into official repos. The silence - is sign of agreement :) -- To unsubscribe, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+unsubscribe@opensuse.org To contact the owner, e-mail: opensuse-packaging+owner@opensuse.org
participants (3)
-
Hans-Peter Jansen -
Jan Engelhardt -
Konstantin Voinov