Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-09-10 17:40:35 +0200:

On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 10:16 -0500, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christoph wrote:

...

Hi,

I have just adopted the package xmind (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22394) because the former maintainer disowned it, and I am not shure which is the best way to build the package.

There are three possibilities:

1) Building from source 2) Building from the "Portable" zip-file (see http://www.xmind.net/downloads/) 3) Building from the deb-files provided for Debian/Ubuntu (see http://www.xmind.net/downloads/)

ad 1) This is what you would usually do, but according to http://groups.google.com/group/xmind-dev/browse_thread/thread/d68d0c8f30b4b4... the eclipse ide would be a prerequisite, so that would need a very large download if you do not already have installed eclipse (nearly 170 MB for eclipse plus 10 MB for the xmind source code!)

ad 2) This was the way the former maintainer went. Download size: 75 MB The portable zip-file contains both the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions, so the PKGBUILD just had to copy the right files.

ad 3) When I proposed (a year ago) to use the deb-files instead in order to have smaller downloads (each of them, 32-bit and the 64-bit has appr. 36 MB), the maintainer told me that this would be ugly and "not the Arch way", that he would not do such a thing. When I told him that I did not get the point of it, since the zip file equally just installed ready-built binaries, he did not respond to it.

I still think that using the deb-files would - in this special case - be the best option. But of course I would never dare to deviate from "the Arch way" (since it is the way to world domination, as we all know ;-)).

What do you think?

Christoph

I always prefer a package build from source, but if it's provided in a portable zip, that is a valid option in this instance. I would say go with option 2.

Cheers!

It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is identicaly (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs are arch-specific. I'd think its simpler to just go with option 3. Its surprising that any project REQUIRES eclipse to build though, eclipse can generate makefiles which can be shipped with source....

That's why I'd go with option four, kindly ask upstream to fix this. -- Philipp -- "Wir stehen selbst enttäuscht und sehn betroffen / Den Vorhang zu und alle Fragen offen." Bertolt Brecht, Der gute Mensch von Sezuan

Xmind uses the graphic toolkit from eclipse afaik. I think thats the problem, because the Eclipse toolkit does not come with Java. Am Freitag, den 10.09.2010, 16:50 +0100 schrieb Magnus Therning:

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 16:44, Philipp Überbacher wrote:

...

Excerpts from Ng Oon-Ee's message of 2010-09-10 17:40:35 +0200:

...

On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 10:16 -0500, Thomas Dziedzic wrote:

...

On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 10:02 AM, Christoph wrote:

...

Hi,

I have just adopted the package xmind (http://aur.archlinux.org/packages.php?ID=22394) because the former maintainer disowned it, and I am not shure which is the best way to build the package.

There are three possibilities:

1) Building from source 2) Building from the "Portable" zip-file (see http://www.xmind.net/downloads/) 3) Building from the deb-files provided for Debian/Ubuntu (see http://www.xmind.net/downloads/)

ad 1) This is what you would usually do, but according to http://groups.google.com/group/xmind-dev/browse_thread/thread/d68d0c8f30b4b4... the eclipse ide would be a prerequisite, so that would need a very large download if you do not already have installed eclipse (nearly 170 MB for eclipse plus 10 MB for the xmind source code!)

ad 2) This was the way the former maintainer went. Download size: 75 MB The portable zip-file contains both the 32-bit and the 64-bit versions, so the PKGBUILD just had to copy the right files.

ad 3) When I proposed (a year ago) to use the deb-files instead in order to have smaller downloads (each of them, 32-bit and the 64-bit has appr. 36 MB), the maintainer told me that this would be ugly and "not the Arch way", that he would not do such a thing. When I told him that I did not get the point of it, since the zip file equally just installed ready-built binaries, he did not respond to it.

I still think that using the deb-files would - in this special case - be the best option. But of course I would never dare to deviate from "the Arch way" (since it is the way to world domination, as we all know ;-)).

What do you think?

Christoph

I always prefer a package build from source, but if it's provided in a portable zip, that is a valid option in this instance. I would say go with option 2.

Cheers!

It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is identicaly (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs are arch-specific. I'd think its simpler to just go with option 3. Its surprising that any project REQUIRES eclipse to build though, eclipse can generate makefiles which can be shipped with source....

That's why I'd go with option four, kindly ask upstream to fix this.

What exactly is eclipse used for here (I'm completely ignorant, having never used eclipse myself, so please enlighten me)?

Would it be an option to perform the step requiring eclipse and ship the result as a patch with the source?

/M

On 11 September 2010 14:05, Magnus Therning wrote:

On 10/09/10 18:04, Günther Wutz wrote:

...

Xmind uses the graphic toolkit from eclipse afaik. I think thats the problem, because the Eclipse toolkit does not come with Java.

Maybe the eclipse package should be split then?

/M

-- Magnus Therning                        (OpenPGP: 0xAB4DFBA4) magnus＠therning．org           Jabber: magnus＠therning．org http://therning.org/magnus         identi.ca|twitter: magthe

If it's only the toolkit there is swt (which is the toolkit in which eclipse is written) in repository.

On 10.09.2010 19:07, Christoph wrote:

On Friday, 10 September 2010, 17:40:35 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is identicaly (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs are arch-specific.

That describes the situation very well. Moreover, the debs contain a .desktop and a .png file, whereas the zip file does not, and the zip version looks for the configuration file in some sub-sub-subfolder, not in /etc.

Christoph

You should consider option 4, like Philipp suggested, until then i don't see how option 2 should be any better than option 3. Ulf

Am Freitag, 10. September 2010, 21:59:47 schrieb Ng Oon-Ee:

On Fri, 2010-09-10 at 19:22 +0200, Ulf Winkelvos wrote:

...

On 10.09.2010 19:07, Christoph wrote:

...

On Friday, 10 September 2010, 17:40:35 Ng Oon-Ee wrote:

...

It looks like in this case the content of the portable zip is identicaly (just about) to the content of the deb, just that the debs are arch-specific.

That describes the situation very well. Moreover, the debs contain a .desktop and a .png file, whereas the zip file does not, and the zip version looks for the configuration file in some sub-sub-subfolder, not in /etc.

Christoph

You should consider option 4, like Philipp suggested, until then i don't see how option 2 should be any better than option 3.

Ulf

You mean besides the fact that 'debs are evil-er than zips'?

Something about that 'data' folder is really bad =)

For the time being I have uploaded a PKGBUILD based on option 3. According to Philips suggestion I am going to ask upstream for a source tarball not needing eclipse to build, but I am not very optimistic. I think that if they had wanted to issue such a tarball, they would already have done so. Nevertheless, I'll give it a try. Thanks for all your replies and suggestions. Cheers, Christoph