|
Description
Tomás Cohen Arazi (tcohen)
2012-07-19 14:03:06 UTC
Created attachment 11081 [details] [review] Bug 8478 - Create an INSTALL file for 12.04 Created a INSTALL.ubuntu.precise file, based on the old (9.04) file present in the source tree. Created attachment 11082 [details] [review] Bug 8478 - Rename ubuntu.packages to ubuntu.precise.packages As we are making explicit the Ubuntu version the file should be used in, we rename this file. An ubuntu.lucid.packages file and updated INSTALL.ubuntu.lucid is to be attached soon. You may wish to look at bug 8489. I already patched the ubuntu files including the various .packages and the ubuntu-pkg-check.sh script. Download 3.6.7 and you will notice that the ubuntu_maverick.packages file had been renamed already, and there are "other" files. This way the ubuntu-pkg-check.sh script could use `lsb_release -r` to determine which file to use: - ubuntu.10.04.packages (from ubuntu.packages) - ubuntu.10.10.packages (from ubuntu_maverick.packages) - ubuntu.12.04.packages (tweaked from ubuntu.packages) - ubuntu.packages (copy of ubuntu.12.04.packages, a 'default' for other versions) This is how I see ubuntu file updates related to *.packages moving forward: When Ubuntu 12.10 is released, ubuntu.packages will be updated. When Ubuntu 13.04 is released, ubuntu.packages will be updated. When Ubuntu 13.10 is released, ubuntu.packages will be updated. HOWEVER, when Ubuntu 14.04 LTS is released - ubuntu.packages will be updated - ubuntu.packages will be copied to ubuntu.14.04.packages - ubuntu.10.* will be deleted And thus, there should always be three ubuntu.*packages files existing: - current LTS - previous LTS - ubuntu.packages reflecting the current non-LTS release. The fact that ubuntu.10.10.packages file exists is due to not wanting to delete files while trying to get my patches in under the wire (thanks for letting me get the patches in, jcamins). Similarly, I personally think we should version number the INSTALL.Ubuntu files, not use the names. The INSTALL.Ubuntu and related instructions still need updating. I'll look at the attachments later. Created attachment 11104 [details]
New file for installation instructions under Ubuntu 12.04
I took bits and pieces from the original INSTALL.ubuntu file and what tcohen had posted.
I tried to keep lines formatted to 65 wide, except sample output and command-lines. That way cut&pasting should work. :)
Hopefully this is cleaner. If there are any problems, please let me know. I want this written so that someone not so familiar with linux would be able to follow it.
Feedback appreciated.
The INSTALL.ubuntu.precise file should remain as a patch, not the file itself. Created attachment 11152 [details]
Alpha Version Script to find: things missing in repo, find matching in repo, find missing in {os}.{version}.packages files
I agree we should be posting patches. However, I didn't have my development system running at the time. Additionally, this is a NEW file.
Unrevised:
ubuntu.packages
ubuntu_maverick.packages
ubuntu-pkg-check.sh
Revised:
git cp ubuntu.packages ubuntu.12.04.packages
vi ubuntu.12.04.packages
git cp ubuntu.12.04.packages ubuntu.packages
git cp ubuntu.packages ubuntu.10.04.packages
git mv ubuntu_maverick.packages ubuntu.10.10.packages
vi ubuntu-pkg-check.sh
As I am currently working on my check_deps.sh script, I'll be able to simply grab the files from the *3.6.7 release* and then run my check_deps.sh script, add the missing pieces, and generate the patch.
But until then, I am attaching the latest alpha version. I say alpha, because though the command line options are parsed they are not all implemented.
--koha-dir should work
--list-dir, --dist, --release do not work yet
--file should work
--full should work
And yes, it isn't a patch either.
Comment on attachment 11152 [details] Alpha Version Script to find: things missing in repo, find matching in repo, find missing in {os}.{version}.packages files This attachment is more generic than just Ubuntu. Jared suggested it could go into release tools. So, I created a separate bug report (bug 8517) to handle just this script. This will not be part of this bug's necessary patches/files. Created attachment 11204 [details] [review] A patch to update ubuntu related files in master This bug already relates to 3.8.X patch to follow. Created attachment 11205 [details] [review] A patch to update ubuntu related files in 3.8.x That should be it. Nothing that will break koha, just help Ubuntu folks install from a tarball, mention git, and point them at the packages as well. :) Needs sign off, unless Tomás Cohen Arazi wants to patch the documentation portion of this further. (In reply to comment #10) > Needs sign off, unless Tomás Cohen Arazi wants to patch the documentation > portion of this further. My patch would depend on Bug 8519 so I'll sign on these patches and provide patches against master once it is pushed. Created attachment 11207 [details] [review] Bug 8478 - Update Ubuntu related files Updated installation instructions, cleaned up ubuntu-pkg-check.sh, renamed ubuntu*.packages files more consistently, updated files to include missing libraries, corrected incorrect libraries (yaz3->yaz4, mysqlclient Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> Oops! You didn't dump ubuntu_maverick.packages in your patch, tcohen. I was wondering why there was a 8K difference (41.58KB vs. 33.98KB). *** Bug 8192 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** I'm not sure about the naming Mark. For the 3.8.x patch I see we have: INSTALL.ubuntu INSTALL.ubuntu.12.04 INSTALL.ubuntu.lucid I'd completely remove INSTALL.ubuntu (I don't think we need the user to make assumptions on what version is for) and I'd provide a more consistent naming schema (as you did for the packages files). The same applies for the version against master, which I signed-off. I also prefer this to be pushed so we can send patches against it. *** Bug 5057 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** Okay, let's step back...
The install_misc/ubuntu.{version}.packages files make sense as each version of ubuntu will have differing requirements (eg. yaz3 vs. yaz4).
However, I think you are correct regarding the INSTALL files. I'm not so sure we need more than one. However, the dselect statement is going to differ based on OS version, so it will need to be reflected in the documentation. My understanding was that you were planning on tweaking the documentation, which is why I attached a patch in the first place.
My plan was to get INSTALL.ubuntu.12.04 correct and in good order, and then hopefully that would mean removal of the other two. And then we wouldn't need to version it.
Unfortunately, I'm in the midst of other work, and can't dedicate time to clean up the patches.
The patch should include (M=modified, -=remove, +=add) compared to master or 3.8.X:
M INSTALL.ubuntu (which should be the INSTALL.ubuntu.12.04 git mv'd over INSTALL.ubuntu -- after confirming nothing extra would be lost)
- INSTALL.ubuntu.lucid (versioning of install instructions makes no sense)
M install_misc/ubuntu-pkg-check.sh (should reflect my changes)
- install_misc/ubuntu_maverick.packages (which really gets renamed)
+ install_misc/ubuntu.10.10.packages
+ install_misc/ubuntu.10.04.packages (which is really a copy of the original ubuntu.packages file)
+ install_misc/ubuntu.12.04.packages (which is a tweaked and corrected version for either 3.6.X, 3.8.X or master -- there may be differences)
M install_misc/ubuntu.packages (which is a copy of ubuntu.12.04.packages)
Removal of INSTALL files could be done as a follow up bug. After all this is about updating files, not removing files. Renaming does not remove anything.
And the master patch above continues to keep the install_misc/ubuntu_maverick.packages file.
Created attachment 11536 [details] [review] Bug 8478 - Update Ubuntu related files (3.8.x) Updated allation instructions, cleaned up ubuntu-pkg-check.sh, renamed ubuntu*.packages files more consistently, updated files to include missing libraries, corrected incorrect libraries (yaz3->yaz4, mysqlclient v16 to v18, dropped the dev version of the client). Signed-off-by: Tomas Cohen Arazi <tomascohen@gmail.com> Note for RM: I do not know if we have someone in QA team for such specific patches in the area of Ubuntu installation instructions and packaging. Updating patch status to have RM decide on next step. I think this is why there is the koha-devel mailing list discussion of: documentation formats, making the wiki match the installation instructions, and perhaps giving the INSTALL.{OS} files their own git repository for documentation purposes. At this point in time, those discussions are still in process. I'd like to see these patches get to 3.8.x and master, so at least we have a better base installation instruction set.
(In reply to comment #20) > I think this is why there is the koha-devel mailing list discussion of: > documentation formats, making the wiki match the installation instructions, > and perhaps giving the INSTALL.{OS} files their own git repository for > documentation purposes. At this point in time, those discussions are still > in process. I'd like to see these patches get to 3.8.x and master, so at > least we have a better base installation instruction set. Agreed. Patch pushed to master. (I think it's not an ENH, but a small bugfix) Pushed to 3.8.x, will be in 3.8.5 *** Bug 5217 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. *** |