Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

con · 2006-09-21 05:58:51

Anyone know why the latest Azureus isnt in the repositories yet? It was released over a month ago...

tomk · 2006-09-21 06:19:31

Probably because there are more important things on the devs' to-do list. If you really can't wait, use the existing 2.4.0.2 PKGBUILD and associated files to build the new version for yourself.

If you don't know how, check the wiki.

con · 2006-09-21 07:26:42

ok, thanks for your reply:)

kill · 2006-09-22 01:14:29

Not to sound like a jerk but maybe the proposed idea of having packages automatically orphened in AUR should extend to the main repos. Personally a distro is only as good as it's packages and if a package maintainer can't get thei packages updated then it's either time for them to turn the package over to someone else who has time for it (move it to AUR possibly) or ask for help. What good is rolling release system if the release aren't rolling?

cdhotfire · 2006-09-22 05:09:23

kill wrote:

Not to sound like a jerk but maybe the proposed idea of having packages automatically orphened in AUR should extend to the main repos. Personally a distro is only as good as it's packages and if a package maintainer can't get thei packages updated then it's either time for them to turn the package over to someone else who has time for it (move it to AUR possibly) or ask for help. What good is rolling release system if the release aren't rolling?

So you would have someone like me updating the package? I think not.

scarecrow · 2006-09-22 06:24:22

cdhotfire wrote:

So you would have someone like me updating the package? I think not.

Everyone with a keyboard present can do it in seconds, no knowledge at all required. Simply run abs as root, get the files from /var/abs/extra/network, and modify the PKGBUILD like that (only one number and one md5sum need change):

# $Id: PKGBUILD,v 1.5 2006/03/20 23:13:30 simo Exp $
# Maintainer: Arjan Timmerman <arjan>
# Contributer: Jaroslaw Swierczynski <swiergot>

pkgname=azureus
pkgver=2.5.0.0
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="BitTorrent client with GUI, written in Java"
url="http://azureus.sourceforge.net/"
license="GPL"
depends=('bash' 'gtk2' 'j2re' 'swt')
source=(http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/azureus/Azureus_${pkgver}_linux.tar.bz2 
    $pkgname.desktop azureus.sh)
md5sums=('ab8136429e31327b7d4a06dfec24d646' '752b5a2394f86387fea1cc7e24386819'
         '97a387a4a98c3e8d95d0e3f57f95a74c')
build() {
  cd $startdir/src/$pkgname
  
  install -D -m644 Azureus2.jar $startdir/pkg/usr/share/java/azureus/Azureus2.jar
  for i in *.png;do install -D -m644 $i $startdir/pkg/usr/share/pixmaps/$i; done
  mkdir -p $startdir/pkg/usr/share/$pkgname
  cp -R plugins $startdir/pkg/usr/share/$pkgname
  install -D -m644 $startdir/src/$pkgname.desktop $startdir/pkg/usr/share/applications/$pkgname.desktop
  install -D -m755 $startdir/src/azureus.sh $startdir/pkg/usr/bin/azureus
}

Now run makepkg, and after finishing
su -c "pacman -U azur*.pkg.tar.gz"
...and voila, you have upgraded. Surely enough things are not as easy for other apps, but for Azureus it's fairly simple.
Now try doing that on an RPM based distro, or even under Gentoo...

detto · 2006-09-22 10:58:48

Eerrr, wait a sec. I think he also has to delete the source+md5 entries for azureus.sh and therefore also the last line in build section that copies this azureus.sh.
edit: uopsy! nevermind what i wrote, i guessed the azureus.sh is just an update for azureus from 2.3.4.1 to 2.3.4.2

cdhotfire · 2006-09-22 12:32:16

scarecrow wrote:

cdhotfire wrote:
So you would have someone like me updating the package? I think not.
Everyone with a keyboard present can do it in seconds, no knowledge at all required. Simply run abs as root, get the files from /var/abs/extra/network, and modify the PKGBUILD like that (only one number and one md5sum need change):
# $Id: PKGBUILD,v 1.5 2006/03/20 23:13:30 simo Exp $
# Maintainer: Arjan Timmerman <arjan>
# Contributer: Jaroslaw Swierczynski <swiergot>

pkgname=azureus
pkgver=2.5.0.0
pkgrel=1
pkgdesc="BitTorrent client with GUI, written in Java"
url="http://azureus.sourceforge.net/"
license="GPL"
depends=('bash' 'gtk2' 'j2re' 'swt')
source=(http://dl.sourceforge.net/sourceforge/azureus/Azureus_${pkgver}_linux.tar.bz2 
    $pkgname.desktop azureus.sh)
md5sums=('ab8136429e31327b7d4a06dfec24d646' '752b5a2394f86387fea1cc7e24386819'
         '97a387a4a98c3e8d95d0e3f57f95a74c')
build() {
  cd $startdir/src/$pkgname
  
  install -D -m644 Azureus2.jar $startdir/pkg/usr/share/java/azureus/Azureus2.jar
  for i in *.png;do install -D -m644 $i $startdir/pkg/usr/share/pixmaps/$i; done
  mkdir -p $startdir/pkg/usr/share/$pkgname
  cp -R plugins $startdir/pkg/usr/share/$pkgname
  install -D -m644 $startdir/src/$pkgname.desktop $startdir/pkg/usr/share/applications/$pkgname.desktop
  install -D -m755 $startdir/src/azureus.sh $startdir/pkg/usr/bin/azureus
}
Now run makepkg, and after finishing
su -c "pacman -U azur*.pkg.tar.gz"
...and voila, you have upgraded. Surely enough things are not as easy for other apps, but for Azureus it's fairly simple.
Now try doing that on an RPM based distro, or even under Gentoo...

I mean, update a packages on the official repository. I don't think you want everyone to be able to update them. Plus, obviously it isn't always that simple, as sometimes new versions add new things or remove things, and so the PKGBUILD has to change. I'm not saying for Azureus particularly, but for other packages, as the other poster is suggesting, to be able to update any package.

Dusty · 2006-09-22 12:45:27

Generally, if a dev is busy and falling behind, other devs will update their packages for them. IIRC, one or two devs has quit recently, so there may be a bit of an overload.

Dusty

stavrosg · 2006-09-22 13:00:06

kill wrote:

Not to sound like a jerk but maybe the proposed idea of having packages automatically orphened in AUR should extend to the main repos. Personally a distro is only as good as it's packages and if a package maintainer can't get thei packages updated then it's either time for them to turn the package over to someone else who has time for it (move it to AUR possibly) or ask for help. What good is rolling release system if the release aren't rolling?

Orphaning as a concept is irrelevant for main/community packages since it has been stated before that every developer (or TU, depending on the repo) can update the package, if need arises.

Another thing to have in mind is that it was never Arch's goal to have the "latest and greatest" of every software package available.
If you check the latest (as of today, September 10th) newsletter, you'll see that a lot of devs are busy with exams or such, so things should be expected to be a bit slow for a while.

Now, if there is an out-of-date package that needs to be updated for whatever reason, and it seems forgotten, the best course of action is to file a bug at the bugtracker, since the devs doesn't come around here very often (if at all), and it will be taken care of.

Moo-Crumpus · 2006-09-22 13:16:09

Calm down. You get so impatient. The package is just a month behind, while several devs are in holiday, busy in other affairs or working on upgrading BIG packages, f.e. all the gnome stuff.
Under this circumstances, how much matters a month or two?

Remember, archlinux has a rather small base of maintainers and devs. Don't compare it with some of the larger distros.

I am certainly tired of "will package X arrive soon", "was released yesterday, gimme the package" and all the other yells and shouting.

yak.

Dusty · 2006-09-22 13:25:54

stavrosg wrote:

Another thing to have in mind is that it was never Arch's goal to have the "latest and greatest" of every software package available.

Actually, "relatively bleeding edge and for those who are impatient, an easy way to compile using ABS" is part of the design philosophy. Arch packages are rarely more than one release behind the actual packages.

Dusty

Snarkout · 2006-09-22 16:23:57

I'd say go the ABS route. ABS is one of the things about Arch I absolutely love (well, the entire PKGBUILD system). Some PKGBUILDS can be difficult to parse, and some of them have a lot of deps or patches that need updating, too, but in general, it's pretty flippin easy to update packages or change package options if you put a little effort into it, or don't mind losing the patches for a few weeks/months.

In any event, complaining isn't going to get a new package built. Not directed at the OP, but people in general. Complaining is what blogs are for

kill · 2006-09-22 21:34:35

scarecrow wrote:

or even under Gentoo

You mean change the file name to the new version, digest and emerge? Yes it is that simple in Gentoo but I don't have to worry about doing that on my Gentoo box because the package is already there. What is the point of running a binary distro if a user has to continually compile packages themselves? They might as well use a source based distro like Gentoo if they have to compile from source anyway.

Dusty wrote:

Generally, if a dev is busy and falling behind, other devs will update their packages for them. IIRC, one or two devs has quit recently, so there may be a bit of an overload.

Scarecrow showed how easy it is to update Azureus in this case. To say all the dev's are busy and even after a month none of them have five minutes to take to change two lines in the PKGBUILD, build the package and upload it is bull. If there is such a need for devs have the remainder ask the community publicly for help. There are people willing to help around here. Devs aren't alone around here.

cdhotfire wrote:

So you would have someone like me updating the package?

What's wrong with a dev saying, "Hey I don't have time to update this package. Can someone look over the new release and update the PKGBUILD for me? I'll look over the changes, built and release it." There are plenty of people who are capable and willing to do this around here. That would cut down on the time needed to update a given package.

stavrosg wrote:

Another thing to have in mind is that it was never Arch's goal to have the "latest and greatest" of every software package available.

Maybe the wiki should be updated then. According to the ArchLinux page keeping the packages up to date is a goal.

http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/ArchLinux wrote:

Also Arch Linux strives to maintain the latest stable version of its software.

In this case 2.5.0.0 is the latest version and offers a number of bug fixes and stability improvements.

Snarkout wrote:

In any event, complaining isn't going to get a new package built.

Neither is sitting around waiting for a dev to get around to it.

Snarkout wrote:

Complaining is what blogs are for

This was never meant to be viewed as a complaint but as a criticism (constructive). In this case, 1 package, 1 month, 5 minutes, yet no dev has the time. There are other packages in the repos just like this one. Something needs to be done about the situation. Be it add more devs, allow trusted users access to update the packages, add trusted users, allow more community involvement in maintaining the packages, ask some to specifically update packages as needed. I don't know the inner workings of the TU system, I can build packages and mostly get the relevant files into AUR but sitting here hoping someone will eventually get around to updating a package isn't a good thing.

Mikos · 2006-09-22 22:06:22

Well, slow package updates was the main reason why I have leaved Gentoo and installed Arch Linux. Please don't make it happens again in Arch!

This is really starting to be issue - for example bzr package (Bazaar version control system) wasn't updated for nearly 2 months, there were 2 new major versions of Bazaar released since that time (with really important bug fixes and features). I have already filled bug report, but it is still not updated.

If there is not enough developers, than make more people developers! Maybe some TUs would like to be developers. And then some users can be elected as new TUs. Make Arch development team bigger! ;-)

scarecrow · 2006-09-23 06:41:20

kill wrote:

You mean change the file name to the new version, digest and emerge? Yes it is that simple in Gentoo but I don't have to worry about doing that on my Gentoo box because the package is already there. What is the point of running a binary distro if a user has to continually compile packages themselves? They might as well use a source based distro like Gentoo if they have to compile from source anyway.

I'm just saying the obvious: Making an aurbuild yourself is certainly easier than making an e-build, and way easier than writing down an RPM spec file.
Arch may be a binary distro, but it can also be used as a source one. I will certainly never do it, but I see nothing wrong with making some packages from source when I have no alternative.

postlogic · 2006-09-23 16:17:51

Take note that some packages may take a while to get updated because there is a lot of work to get it working at all. Some packages are really complex (not saying that Azureus is one of them), and might take a bit of work to get going. This takes time.

Also, why are users complaining each time an individual package falls behind? I mean, there tends to be a lot of focus on this lately, and I see it keeps happening with minor packages.

It's kinda like how you always see many users complaining about a faulty thing in hardware, yet this is only a fraction of the actual user-base who are happy and not complaining.

I've got several packages I update myself, instead of burdening the devs more than necessary by filing bugs/mailing the maintainer/whining about an already flagged package in the forum|mailing list|irc channel. It's easy, and once it gets updated, just replace the one you made yourself with the new one if you want to keep it mainstreamed.

People keep thinking that devs are there for them at all costs. Arch is a do it yourself distro. Now do it yourself.

Snarkout · 2006-09-23 18:06:13

kill wrote:

This was never meant to be viewed as a complaint but as a criticism (constructive). In this case, 1 package, 1 month, 5 minutes, yet no dev has the time. There are other packages in the repos just like this one. Something needs to be done about the situation. Be it add more devs, allow trusted users access to update the packages, add trusted users, allow more community involvement in maintaining the packages, ask some to specifically update packages as needed. I don't know the inner workings of the TU system, I can build packages and mostly get the relevant files into AUR but sitting here hoping someone will eventually get around to updating a package isn't a good thing.

You'd probably bend a few more ears on the mailing list then.

con · 2006-09-23 18:28:36

postlogic wrote:

Take note that some packages may take a while to get updated because there is a lot of work to get it working at all. Some packages are really complex (not saying that Azureus is one of them), and might take a bit of work to get going. This takes time.

Yes, I understand and totally agree.

postlogic wrote:

Also, why are users complaining each time an individual package falls behind? I mean, there tends to be a lot of focus on this lately, and I see it keeps happening with minor packages.

OK, I wasnt complaining..I just asked if anyone knew why the latest azureus release wasnt in the repositories yet, I assumed there were some problems with it i.e it broke something. The first reply I got answered that question.

postlogic wrote:

I've got several packages I update myself, instead of burdening the devs more than necessary by filing bugs/mailing the maintainer/whining about an already flagged package in the forum|mailing list|irc channel. It's easy, and once it gets updated, just replace the one you made yourself with the new one if you want to keep it mainstreamed.

Thanks for the tip . But honestly I'd have to say I'm too lazy for that even to file bug reports/get on irc....

postlogic wrote:

People keep thinking that devs are there for them at all costs. Arch is a do it yourself distro. Now do it yourself.

hmmm....I've been using Slackware on my desktop for the last 4 or 5 years...And compared to Slack I would say Arch isnt a DIY distro at all. Pacman handles all updating and installing, dont even have to check the arch site for updates just a simple -Syu is all you have to do. Installed arch on my laptop about 1 year ago and the only thing I've done myself so far is compiled a kernel and ndiswrapper. I would even go so far as to say that arch is perfect for beginners who really want to learn what linux is all about without too much fuss.

...why the heck are all forums so hostile these days? c'mon people go outside and kick some tree's or something....good god!

Mikos · 2006-09-23 21:53:04

postlogic wrote:

Take note that some packages may take a while to get updated because there is a lot of work to get it working at all. Some packages are really complex (not saying that Azureus is one of them), and might take a bit of work to get going. This takes time.
Also, why are users complaining each time an individual package falls behind? I mean, there tends to be a lot of focus on this lately, and I see it keeps happening with minor packages.
It's kinda like how you always see many users complaining about a faulty thing in hardware, yet this is only a fraction of the actual user-base who are happy and not complaining.
I've got several packages I update myself, instead of burdening the devs more than necessary by filing bugs/mailing the maintainer/whining about an already flagged package in the forum|mailing list|irc channel. It's easy, and once it gets updated, just replace the one you made yourself with the new one if you want to keep it mainstreamed.
People keep thinking that devs are there for them at all costs. Arch is a do it yourself distro. Now do it yourself.

I have created more than 45 packages in AUR, some of them has become community packages (kernel26ck, ttf-dejavu). So I am doing something for Arch. But I am also complaining and I always will be complaining about outdated packages, because this is really important thing to me. If current developers don't have time for updates, than make more people developers!

iphitus · 2006-09-23 23:21:30

I have created more than 45 packages in AUR, some of them has become community packages (kernel26ck, ttf-dejavu). So I am doing something for Arch. But I am also complaining and I always will be complaining about outdated packages, because this is really important thing to me. If current developers don't have time for updates, than make more people developers!

you wouldnt know, but we just brought 4 more developers on board.

the dev team's been a bit low on manpower of late, at least two or three of us have exams now or upcoming soon, others are heavily bogged down with work and real life. no work = no money = no internet = no arch. a couple have had vacations too.

so yeah, we've been busy, but we've done something about it.

James

lumiwa · 2006-09-23 23:34:19

I am not developer, not TUR but I am a busy person . My opinion or suggestion is that will be good that TUR have limited quota of packages. When I asked who is WillySilly I asked because I was surprised how one person could keep updated I don't know how many packages. I you are employee will be difficult.

But on the end after almost one year of Arch on my computer I can say: ARCH is VERY good.

Mikos · 2006-09-24 00:21:25

iphitus wrote:

you wouldnt know, but we just brought 4 more developers on board.

Great! I like to hear it ;-) More developers == better Arch :-)

iphitus wrote:

the dev team's been a bit low on manpower of late, at least two or three of us have exams now or upcoming soon, others are heavily bogged down with work and real life. no work = no money = no internet = no arch. a couple have had vacations too.
so yeah, we've been busy, but we've done something about it.

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate what you developers do for Arch. Arch is the best distribution I have ever seen, it precisely fits my needs. And I also know how is it sometimes hard to do something for community because of real life problems, work, etc. But I have seen things like many outdated packages and too closed developers community in the past (in my Gentoo days) and I don't want it to happens also in Arch.

iphitus · 2006-09-24 01:13:06

Mikos wrote:

Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate what you developers do for Arch. Arch is the best distribution I have ever seen, it precisely fits my needs. And I also know how is it sometimes hard to do something for community because of real life problems, work, etc. But I have seen things like many outdated packages and too closed developers community in the past (in my Gentoo days) and I don't want it to happens also in Arch.

i know what you mean, it's sad when that happens, but dont worry, there's plenty of us still here and it won't be happening to arch.

JGC will be back and kicking after his holiday, I'll have heaps of time after school finishes (end of november) -- i have nothing until march next year when uni starts again. Tpowa should have plenty of time after his pharmacy exams are done too. There's our 4 new devs, brain0, Cerebral, Shadowhand and Codemac who will get some things goin too. It's lookin like Shadowhand will get the unstable repo alive again, with some newer svn packages and things to play with, to make sure we really are ahead.

Quiet before the storm i say

James

codemac · 2006-09-25 17:06:44

Mikos: I agree that Arch has been kinda stalling a bit, hopefully us new devs get things a bit quicker, and then bigger changes can be made

Arch Linux

#1 2006-09-21 05:58:51

Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#2 2006-09-21 06:19:31

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#3 2006-09-21 07:26:42

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#4 2006-09-22 01:14:29

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#5 2006-09-22 05:09:23

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#6 2006-09-22 06:24:22

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#7 2006-09-22 10:58:48

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#8 2006-09-22 12:32:16

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#9 2006-09-22 12:45:27

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#10 2006-09-22 13:00:06

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#11 2006-09-22 13:16:09

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#12 2006-09-22 13:25:54

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#13 2006-09-22 16:23:57

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#14 2006-09-22 21:34:35

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#15 2006-09-22 22:06:22

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#16 2006-09-23 06:41:20

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#17 2006-09-23 16:17:51

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#18 2006-09-23 18:06:13

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#19 2006-09-23 18:28:36

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#20 2006-09-23 21:53:04

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#21 2006-09-23 23:21:30

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#22 2006-09-23 23:34:19

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#23 2006-09-24 00:21:25

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#24 2006-09-24 01:13:06

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

#25 2006-09-25 17:06:44

Re: Why not Azureus 2.5.0?

Board footer