Ship backported tint2 by default?

johnraff · 2018-05-17 10:36:07

This bug: https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=4813
seems to be fixed by upgrading tint2 to the version in our backports repository (16.2-1+deb9).

We have a long-standing policy of using standard Debian packages as far as possible, but is this a case for making an exception?

cloverskull · 2018-05-17 14:33:04

Makes sense to me. Does it create any dependency hell with packages it pulls in?

Head_on_a_Stick · 2018-05-17 16:46:39

cloverskull wrote:

Does it create any dependency hell with packages it pulls in?

No, the package would be rebuilt against the stretch dependencies.

cloverskull · 2018-05-17 22:01:02

Yeah, in that case, IMO this is one of the explicit advantages about having our own repos to augment what's being tracked in the Debian Stable upstream repos.

tknomanzr · 2018-05-17 22:03:41

I am going to say yes. I almost always end up running with the latest version anyway.

DeepDayze · 2018-05-18 00:37:02

Sounds like a good idea to me, considering the noted bugs the default tint2 in Stretch has that have bugged (pardon the pun!) several users here.

hhh · 2018-05-18 02:29:21

Yea vote here.

lbdesign · 2018-05-18 12:27:41

Absolutely. I run arch now but would get the latest tint2 always. Can't remember when they added mousewheel support but living without that is impossible now.

Last edited by lbdesign (2018-05-18 12:28:35)

cloverskull · 2018-05-18 15:15:10

This makes me wonder...what about some of our other primary packages? I.e., how trivial should it be to ship backported conky or openbox, and what might we be missing with current stable versions? Worth spinning off a new thread to discuss?

hhh · 2018-05-18 16:25:12

cloverskull wrote:

This makes me wonder...what about some of our other primary packages? I.e., how trivial should it be to ship backported conky or openbox, and what might we be missing with current stable versions?

When "The End" of #! was announced and "The Continuation" was being formed, Team member pvsage was a proponent of staying with default Debian wherever possible, and with good reason. Some of #!s defaults became problematic because corenominal wasn't updating them.

This still makes sense with BL, the volunteer Team members would be responsible for tracking bugs and updates.

Worth spinning off a new thread to discuss?

Definitely.

cloverskull · 2018-05-18 17:20:24

Cool, spun off https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=4833 to discuss.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2018-05-19 15:09:10

hhh wrote:

staying with default Debian wherever possible

^ I support this approach generally but tint2 might be a special case because we know the program so well.

tknomanzr · 2018-05-19 17:12:53

In tint2's case, we have a direct connection to the developer who has graciously implemented several things that have been suggested by members of this forum, including myself. In a case like that, I have no issue offering a backported version, although I have never found it to be terribly difficult to build from source.

Head_on_a_Stick · 2018-05-19 17:18:16

tknomanzr wrote:

I have never found it to be terribly difficult to build from source

BunsenLabs has been offering the very latest version of tint2 in it's backports repository for some time now and we[1] usually do a better job of keeping it up to date than the Arch Linux devs

[1] The package maintainers (not me).

johnraff · 2018-05-21 06:05:05

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:

BunsenLabs has been offering the very latest version of tint2 in it's backports repository for some time now

Indeed (thanks to @nobody), so it would just be a question of moving the package from the backports repo to BL main.

There is the precedent of yad, where we used a backported version in BL Hydrogen.

hhh · 2018-05-22 03:32:52

johnraff wrote:

Head_on_a_Stick wrote:
BunsenLabs has been offering the very latest version of tint2 in it's backports repository for some time now
Indeed (thanks to @nobody), so it would just be a question of moving the package from the backports repo to BL main.
There is the precedent of yad, where we used a backported version in BL Hydrogen.

tint2 is so benign, just a few files. Surely it's justified in this case?

Yes. And stop calling me Shirley.

johnraff · 2018-07-09 09:02:22

tint2 16.4-1 now in main repo: https://forums.bunsenlabs.org/viewtopic.php?id=5033

altman · 2018-07-09 16:06:04

Thx for the work devs, appreciated.

hhh · 2018-07-09 22:16:00

Excellent, I'm glad we made an exception for this.

#1 2018-05-17 10:36:07

Ship backported tint2 by default?

#2 2018-05-17 14:33:04

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#3 2018-05-17 16:46:39

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#4 2018-05-17 22:01:02

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#5 2018-05-17 22:03:41

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#6 2018-05-18 00:37:02

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#7 2018-05-18 02:29:21

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#8 2018-05-18 12:27:41

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#9 2018-05-18 15:15:10

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#10 2018-05-18 16:25:12

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#11 2018-05-18 17:20:24

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#12 2018-05-19 15:09:10

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#13 2018-05-19 17:12:53

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#14 2018-05-19 17:18:16

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#15 2018-05-21 06:05:05

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#16 2018-05-22 03:32:52

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#17 2018-07-09 09:02:22

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#18 2018-07-09 16:06:04

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

#19 2018-07-09 22:16:00

Re: Ship backported tint2 by default?

Board footer