easing external software installation - discussion

[Development discussions related to Fedora]

Hi (again),

I would like to make it easier to install external software on a fedora 
system. My specific example is vmware-server and vmware-server-console, 
but as was suggested by others, once a precedent is set, surely other 
(unknown) external software would be requested to get this assistance.

The specific case I'm considering is the situation where a packager 
would like to ease the installation of software on Fedora that can't be 
in Fedora due to either upstream or fedora reasons. An example is:
[4] 
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.devel/82395/focus=82468
[5] https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478007

In this case, there is multiple issues:
- the external package is not freely re-distributable.
- the external rpm does not have a source package.
- the external binary rpm package is a generic package for all distros 
archs, and releases, and doesn't know about fedora specific package 
naming / requires / file locations.
- the rpm (or pre-built source) needs i386 libraries on an x86_64 system.
- it is unlikely that the upstream package will create a fedora specific 
rpm set (ie arch and releases)
- people do still want to use such external packages on fedora systems

The immediate private solution is to create a meta-package - this needed 
also other non-preferred tricks (requires: filename) so that i386 libs 
would get installed on a x86_64 system. While the end result actually 
works, various people have trouble with:

- use of metapackages (see earlier fedora-packaging list discussion 
starter on metapackages)

- the fact that this is making it easier to use non-free software in fedora

It seems the preferred solution is to use comps groups (yet I don't 
think that they can solve the needing i386 libs on x86_64 problem).

- It has been suggested that if such a group was committed, "a line 
would form to revert the change".

- It suggests that Fedora somehow supports the external software. This 
might allow fedora users to expect solutions to problems in the external 
software.

I would like to know in what ways an acceptable solution to this issue 
could be found. For example, do we want fedora to specifically exclude 
users from running external (as in not packaged in Fedora) software. Or 
just make it hard for them ? Could those individuals that are rejecting 
such groups or metapackages just ignore the fact that such things exist 
in Fedora, and let those people that it will assist get on with using 
their Fedora system how they want to ?

Could we have an "external software requirement" category or 
sub-category in comps that packagers could use to put together similar 
groups of packages needed by specific external software packages - like:
|- Desktop
|- Servers
...
|- Languages
|- External software installation requirements
   { eases the install of external software by installing Fedora 
packages that such software needs to be able to run on Fedora. The 
external software will still need to be obtained from it's distributor, 
will often need further manual configuration to be usable, and is not 
supported by the Fedora project }
   |-- ldap browser
   |-- vmware server
   |-- vmware server console

Is the fact that the external software is mentioned by name a potential 
problem ? Would for example "pc virtualization server" resolve that ?

Are there any real problems in any of the above ?

Cheers,

David Timms.

[Development discussions related to Fedora]

David Timms wrote:
>  Could we have an "external software requirement" category
> or 
>  sub-category in comps that packagers could use to put together similar 
>  groups of packages needed by specific external software packages - like:
>  |- Desktop
>  |- Servers
>  ...
>  |- Languages
>  |- External software installation requirements
>    { eases the install of external software by installing Fedora packages 
>  that such software needs to be able to run on Fedora. The external 
>  software will still need to be obtained from it's distributor, will 
>  often need further manual configuration to be usable, and is not 
>  supported by the Fedora project }
>    |-- ldap browser
>    |-- vmware server
>    |-- vmware server console
>  
>  Is the fact that the external software is mentioned by name a potential 
>  problem ? Would for example "pc virtualization server" resolve that ?
>  
>  Are there any real problems in any of the above ? 
- we could require that only external software, that could never be 
properly packaged in Fedora due to either third-party or our 
constraints, would be allowed to have such a comps entry.

- Some people seem to call external software "third party software". 
This is a bit deceptive as most of the software packaged in Fedora is 
written by third parties (and their communities). Yet it might be better 
terminology.

So far it seems no one is objecting to this proposal (at least in 
fedora-packaging list). Since this isn't directly a packaging issue, is 
this the most appropriate forum for such a discussion ?

Cheers,

David Timms.

[itamar]

why are you asking ?

because this

https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478007

?


On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 7:12 PM, David Timms <dtimms(a)iinet.net.au&gt; wrote:
>  David Timms wrote:
> >
> > Could we have an "external software requirement" category or sub-category
> > in comps that packagers could use to put together similar groups of packages
> > needed by specific external software packages - like:
> > |- Desktop
> > |- Servers
> > ...
> > |- Languages
> > |- External software installation requirements
> >  { eases the install of external software by installing Fedora packages
> > that such software needs to be able to run on Fedora. The external software
> > will still need to be obtained from it's distributor, will often need
> > further manual configuration to be usable, and is not supported by the
> > Fedora project }
> >  |-- ldap browser
> >  |-- vmware server
> >  |-- vmware server console
> >
> > Is the fact that the external software is mentioned by name a potential
> > problem ? Would for example "pc virtualization server" resolve that ?
> >
> > Are there any real problems in any of the above ?
>
>  - we could require that only external software, that could never be properly
>  packaged in Fedora due to either third-party or our constraints, would be
>  allowed to have such a comps entry.
>
>  - Some people seem to call external software "third party software". This is
>  a bit deceptive as most of the software packaged in Fedora is written by
>  third parties (and their communities). Yet it might be better terminology.
>
>  So far it seems no one is objecting to this proposal (at least in
>  fedora-packaging list). Since this isn't directly a packaging issue, is this
>  the most appropriate forum for such a discussion ?
>
>  Cheers,
>
>  David Timms.
>
>  --
>  Fedora-packaging mailing list
>  Fedora-packaging(a)redhat.com
>  https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-packaging
>  


-- 
------------

Itamar Reis Peixoto

e-mail/msn: itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br
sip: itamar(a)ispbrasil.com.br
skype: itamarjp
icq: 81053601
[phone]
[phone]

[Development discussions related to Fedora]

Itamar Reis Peixoto wrote:
>  why are you asking ?
>  
>  because this
>  
>  https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=478007 
Yes.

You might have missed the initial post ?
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.extras.packaging/5266
and references:
http://thread.gmane.org/gmane.linux.redhat.fedora.extras.packaging/5255

DaveT.

[Patrice Dumas]

On Tue, Jan 13, 2009 at 01:35:59AM +1100, David Timms wrote:
>  Hi (again),
>
>  It seems the preferred solution is to use comps groups (yet I don't  
>  think that they can solve the needing i386 libs on x86_64 problem). 
I don't think so. A meta-package looks like a right technical solution
to me for your issue.

>  - It has been suggested that if such a group was committed, "a
> line  
>  would form to revert the change". 
Agreed. A comps group for the dependencies of a proprietary (or free) 
software is not right in my opinion.

>  - It suggests that Fedora somehow supports the external software.
> This  
>  might allow fedora users to expect solutions to problems in the external  
>  software. 
This is really a weak argument.

Also there are packages in fedora, for example libflashsupport to support
proprietary software. So the argument about not helping with proprietary 
software is moot. As long as it is free software it is right.


However I think that meta-packages that are not associated with a given
package should be discouraged in fedora. Some specific meta-package only
can be accepted, for example 'basesystem' is somehow a meta package,
also meta-packages for hardware support when one don't know which precise
driver should be used seem right to me.

But random meta-packages are not acceptable in my opinion. This opens 
the door for arbitrary convenience packages, I don't think this is
something we want. After that I will want a meta-package to be able to
get the dependencies of a numerical model, maybe?

--
Pat