[arch-general] Splitting up the 'boinc' package
Hi, I'm new to this mailing list (and to mailing lists itself), so please forgive me any mistakes I'm doing ;). I hope that I use the right list, at least it seems to be the most adequate one ... However I'm participating in some BOINC projects. Although there is a 'boinc' package in the community repository (which was updated just yesterday). First of all I want to ask you why you have updated this package to a unstable version? According to this (http://boinc.berkeley.edu/download_all.php) page the latest stable version is 6.6.38, but the version in the repository is 6.10.13, which is a development version. Shouldn't there be just stable versions in the repository? Furthermore I think that the package itself should be splitted. I have a root server, which has not X server installed, but want to use boinc there, too. Therefore I think there should be at least two packages 'boinc-client' as well as 'boinc-manager'. The optimum would be even some more packages, something like 'boinc-dev' (all stuff in order to setup an own boinc project). Maybe you can take some inspiration from the debian structure of the boinc packages: http://packages.debian.org/search?keywords=boinc&searchon=names&suite=stable§ion=all I know that it is possible to create this packages for my own (using abs), but I think it should be available for greater audience. What do you think about this? Would it be ok, to create these packages and submit them to the aur? As there is already a boinc package in the main repository, I don't quite know whether such redundancy is accepted at all? Best regards Karol 'johnpatcher' Babioch -- Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 13:49, Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de> wrote:
Hi,
It probably makes more sense to mail the maintainer of the package directly as not everyone reads the ML
On So, 2009-10-18 at 16:14 -0400, Daenyth Blank wrote:
On Sun, Oct 18, 2009 at 13:49, Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de> wrote:
Hi,
It probably makes more sense to mail the maintainer of the package directly as not everyone reads the ML
Thanks for your response. This may sound stupid, but how can I contact him? According to the package info the maintainer is Jaroslav Lichtblau, but I can't figure out any email address :(. The only option I see on the page is to open up a bug report, but I think that this isn't the right way to go, is it? -- Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
You can find address in PKGBUILD file: http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/community/boinc/repos/community-x86_64/PKGBU...
On Mo, 2009-10-19 at 01:18 +0400, Alexandr Bashmakov wrote:
You can find address in PKGBUILD file: http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/community/boinc/repos/community-x86_64/PKGBU...
Thanks a lot, haven't looked there at all :(. -- Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
On Mo, 2009-10-19 at 01:18 +0400, Alexandr Bashmakov wrote:
You can find address in PKGBUILD file: http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/community/boinc/repos/community-x86_64/PKGBU...
I guess I was a little bit too fast with my conclusion, because I can't send him emails at all, as they are returned with the following error:
<dragonlord@aur.archlinux.org>: mail for aur.archlinux.org loops back to myself
So is there anything I can do in order to contact the maintainer? Best regards -- Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
Hi, the problem was that the stable versions until 6.6.36 just didn't build anymore. Therefore I uploaded the SVN package to the AUR btw ;-) I don't know if 6.6.38 build correctly, if you have a working PKGBUILD I think everyone would be happy (since it is stable). But I don't know if that is possible now since a higher version is already in the repos. That would mean everybody has to force a downgrade? I could help you writing the split package but I don't have much time this week. I can't assure you anything ;o) Sorry for being a bit off topic, but Jaroslav Lichtblau copied a bit from my PKGBUILD and left the configure option --optimize in the PKGBUILD. Does the current package work for you? Because --optimize breaks the standard makepkg CFLAGS ... Or is "-ffast-math -O3" considered safe for offical builds? Just to clarify myself, this is no offence I was just surprised to see the option. Best regards
On Mo, 2009-10-19 at 23:03 +0200, Daniel Riedemann wrote:
I don't know if 6.6.38 build correctly, if you have a working PKGBUILD I think everyone would be happy (since it is stable). But I don't know if that is possible now since a higher version is already in the repos. That would mean everybody has to force a downgrade? As we would provide new package names (something like boinc-client, boinc-manager, etc. this shouldn't be a problem at all. We could easily set a conflict flag.
On Mo, 2009-10-19 at 23:03 +0200, Daniel Riedemann wrote:
I could help you writing the split package but I don't have much time this week. I can't assure you anything ;o) It doesn't hurt that much, we could work it out the following week(s), it was just a general idea from me.
Sorry for being a bit off topic, but Jaroslav Lichtblau copied a bit from my PKGBUILD and left the configure option --optimize in the PKGBUILD. Does the current package work for you? Because --optimize breaks the standard makepkg CFLAGS ... Or is "-ffast-math -O3" considered safe for offical builds? I'm not that kind of deep into the compiling thing, so without looking it up, I don't even know what this option exactly stands for ;). I guess
On Mo, 2009-10-19 at 23:03 +0200, Daniel Riedemann wrote: this would be your part right then ;). I will contact you personally, so we can share our knowledge and work it out together ;). Anyone who wants to participate also, is free to contact us. -- Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
On Mon, Oct 19, 2009 at 11:47:14PM +0200, Karol Babioch wrote:
On Mo, 2009-10-19 at 23:03 +0200, Daniel Riedemann wrote:
I don't know if 6.6.38 build correctly, if you have a working PKGBUILD I think everyone would be happy (since it is stable). But I don't know if that is possible now since a higher version is already in the repos. That would mean everybody has to force a downgrade? As we would provide new package names (something like boinc-client, boinc-manager, etc. this shouldn't be a problem at all. We could easily set a conflict flag.
On Mo, 2009-10-19 at 23:03 +0200, Daniel Riedemann wrote:
I could help you writing the split package but I don't have much time this week. I can't assure you anything ;o) It doesn't hurt that much, we could work it out the following week(s), it was just a general idea from me.
Hi all, first of all, sorry for the late answer. I was quite busy with real life this week. Yes, I uploaded the development version to the repository. The stable version there 6.4.5 was very old and I was not able to build the new stable version even after a lot of trying. I just wanted to have a newer version than the out-of-date 6.4.5 For the ATI GPUs: you'll need 6.10.3 or later, said the boinc page, so I took the latest version which built fine, let it run on my 3 computers to find out if there are any problems. After few days testing, with no problems, no crashes, I placed it in community. I could have guessed it will not pass unnoticed. I have to apologize, if I caused any troubles with this step, but at least there are no bugs reported, so maybe this didn't cause any harm until now. Now to the package itself. To be honest, I don't like the Debian structure of the boinc packages. Arch also does not have any openssh-server/openssh-client packages. In my opinion AUR and ABS are the best places for providing such specialities. Or maybe the new package splitting could be used here instead. I didn't have time to study this properly until now, so hints are very welcome. Nevertheless thanks for bringing this up and we may discuss further.
Sorry for being a bit off topic, but Jaroslav Lichtblau copied a bit from my PKGBUILD and left the configure option --optimize in the PKGBUILD. Does the current package work for you? Because --optimize breaks the standard makepkg CFLAGS ... Or is "-ffast-math -O3" considered safe for offical builds? I'm not that kind of deep into the compiling thing, so without looking it up, I don't even know what this option exactly stands for ;). I guess
On Mo, 2009-10-19 at 23:03 +0200, Daniel Riedemann wrote: this would be your part right then ;).
I will contact you personally, so we can share our knowledge and work it out together ;). Anyone who wants to participate also, is free to contact us.
Count me in, I'm open to any suggestions. See you around, Jaroslav
-- Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
Hi, thank you very much for your reply. On Fr, 2009-10-23 at 19:16 +0200, Jaroslav Lichtblau wrote:
To be honest, I don't like the Debian structure of the boinc packages. Arch also does not have any openssh-server/openssh-client packages. In my opinion AUR and ABS are the best places for providing such specialities. For me it is just important that I can use boinc on my remote server without X server installed. I could play around with aur/abs, but I guess I'm not the only one who has installed Arch on a remote server, am I?
Is there any policy forbidding both, the (classical) "boinc" package as well as some of the "new" ones "boinc-client", "boinc-manager" and "boinc-server"? So anyone who just wants to run boinc could install the classical one, and everyone else can precisely choose what components should be installed? I have noticed the exact same problems compiling the latest stable release :(. But, as already said, according to the official site 6.6.41 is the latest release right now, so if you were able to compile 6.6.40 you may also be able to compile 6.6.41, which would it make easy to split it up right then. Could you share your PKGBUILD for 6.6.40? I've tried the one from the repository, but it hadn't worked for me? May it have something to do with some compiling flags? Although I reset my compiling flags to the default, it hasn't worked, so whats wrong here? Best regards johnpatcher -- Best regards, Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
Hi, I was playing around with the boinc package, but I've just realized that the version in the repository [1] (or even abs) is based on boinc 6.10.13, whereas the version I installed through pacman is boinc 6.6.40, which is the latest stable release of boinc. As the PKGBUILD provided in the repos (and the abs) doesn't work with 6.6.40 I'm now wondering how to get to the one used for the latest release provided with pacman? I thought that pacman just uses binaries, which were compiled from PKGBUILDs in the repositories? Where do I have to look in order to get the PKGBUILD, which was used for the latest boinc 6.6.40 release? -- [1] http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/community/boinc/repos/community-x86_64/ Best regards, --- Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
Karol Babioch wrote:
Hi,
I was playing around with the boinc package, but I've just realized that the version in the repository [1] (or even abs) is based on boinc 6.10.13, whereas the version I installed through pacman is boinc 6.6.40, which is the latest stable release of boinc.
As the PKGBUILD provided in the repos (and the abs) doesn't work with 6.6.40 I'm now wondering how to get to the one used for the latest release provided with pacman?
I thought that pacman just uses binaries, which were compiled from PKGBUILDs in the repositories?
Where do I have to look in order to get the PKGBUILD, which was used for the latest boinc 6.6.40 release?
-- [1] http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/community/boinc/repos/community-x86_64/
Best regards,
--- Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
The previous version of boinc in [community] was 6.4.5. Do you use any unofficial repositories from which you may have gotten boinc 6.6.40 in the past? ---- http://repos.archlinux.org/wsvn/community/boinc/trunk/PKGBUILD?op=diff&rev=4195
Hi, I finally managed it to get a working version of the latest release (6.6.41), which should compile just fine (at least it does for me). I'll attach the package. Could you please take a look at the package and look for mistakes or things that could be done better. Maybe the maintainer (Jaroslav Lichtblau) could take this as a base for the package in the community repository, so people can use the latest boinc package just as usual. However I still want to split this package up. I will try to do this in the next days, I guess it should be not that hard using some of the available parameters for the configure script. I plan to split it up in the following parts: boinc-client, boinc-manager, boinc-server. Maybe I will outsource the libraries in another package. I don't see any need for a boinc-dbg package so far, maybe it can be added later. So, what do you think of this idea(s) so far? -- Best regards, Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
Hi again, it seems that I can't attach my file here, so I've uploaded it: http://web108.server123.star-server.info/boinc.tar.gz -- Best regards, Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
Hi, I noticed a little thing that still doesn't work. My package doesn't create / contain the libcudart.so, so you can't use your GPU with boinc. In order to make this workable you have to extract the libcudart.so from the linux installer and place it in /var/lib/boinc. I don't know whether this can be changed by any compiling parameter, as I couldn't find such an option. So maybe I should provide this library with the package itself, making it more unflexible, as the library could change with every update. Btw: In the boinc mailing list they are planning to release 6.10.x as stable release ;). -- Best regards, Karol Babioch <karol@babioch.de>
participants (6)
-
Alexandr Bashmakov
-
Daenyth Blank
-
Daniel Riedemann
-
Evangelos Foutras
-
Jaroslav Lichtblau
-
Karol Babioch