Considerations for 'xmms' removal from Debian

Steve Langasek · External Since: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 2140

On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:31:13PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> * Steve Langasek [Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:25:11 -0700]:

> > But at a minimum, yes, the audacious-plugins package should be depending on
> > libaudacious by way of shlibdeps.

> There is no NEEDED entry in the plugins against libaudaciousX.

That's a bug in the plugins, isn't it? Don't they refer to symbols from
libaudacious?

> Do you mean hardcoding the dependency instead? (Which, true, solves the
> situation.)

Nope.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon.TakeThisOut@debian.org http://www.debian.org/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Adeodato Simó · External Since: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 127

* Steve Langasek [Tue, 03 Jul 2007 13:02:50 -0700]:

> On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 09:31:13PM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote:
> > * Steve Langasek [Tue, 03 Jul 2007 12:25:11 -0700]:

> > > But at a minimum, yes, the audacious-plugins package should be depending on
> > > libaudacious by way of shlibdeps.

> > There is no NEEDED entry in the plugins against libaudaciousX.

> That's a bug in the plugins, isn't it? Don't they refer to symbols from
> libaudacious?

Well, point. But the package level strict dependency is still needed
because you don't want audacious against lib4 and -plugins against lib5
installed at the same time. Given that, I can understand why plugins
would not DT_NEED the main library. (Is that a serious bug? I don't
think so, after all they're not directly under /usr/lib.)

> > (Which, true, solves the situation.)

This referred to the "independent migration to testing" situation.
Breakage may still occur due to partial upgrades.

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

Truth is the most valuable thing we have, so let's economize it.
-- Mark Twain

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Thomas Viehmann · External Since: Jun 03, 2005 Posts: 122

Kapil Hari Paranjape wrote:
> I do understand that an orphaned package of this kind (unmaintained
> upstream) puts a lot of burden on Debian QA. However, "xmms" appears
> to have a large user base and perhaps one of them will come forward
> to maintain the package if it is orphaned. If not, the package will
> be dropped eventually.

I should think that the maintainers are best qualified to make the call
whether to orphan or remove a package.

Removing the package from Debian will not affect current users that
much, it reflects that there is no ongoing development and that starting
to use it now isn't a good idea. Also, the audio files can perfectly
well be accessed with other programs, so users are not left without
alternatives.

If the maintainers think that shipping it with lenny is a bad idea, it
should be removed.

Kind regards

T.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Andreas Tille · External Since: Nov 18, 2004 Posts: 227

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Thomas Viehmann wrote:

> Removing the package from Debian will not affect current users that
> much,

While I perfectly agree that there are replacements for xmms that at
first view look like a new version (for instnce audacious) many user
might have links form their desktops or other hooks that just call
/usr/bin/xmms. So this might affect a lot of users and especially
those users that have no idea how to cope with a missing xmms in their
PATH. IMHO the only way to fix this is to provide a transitional
package that for instance depends from audacious (or other clones),
provides xmms and conflict with older xmms versions and install a
symlink to the replacement.

I think xmms is to wide spread as that we just could wild guess how
many users are affected and how they could cope with this.

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org

Adeodato Simó · External Since: Dec 09, 2005 Posts: 127

* "Adam Cécile (Le_Vert)" [Tue, 03 Jul 2007 21:57:26 +0200]:

> Do you mean having the right audacious-plugins dependency on audacious
> wouldn't be enough ?

No, it would be enough. Just to be clear, I'm talking here about the
dependency scheme proposed in my first message to this bug report, for
*all* packages providing plugins; that is: audacious-plugins,
audacious-plugins-extra, audacious-plugins-ugly, and audacious-crossfade.

Cheers,

--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org

When it is not necessary to make a decision, it is necessary not to make
a decision.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Daniel Baumann · External Since: Jul 11, 2006 Posts: 1838

Andreas Tille wrote:
> IMHO the only way to fix this is to provide a transitional
> package that for instance depends from audacious (or other clones),
> provides xmms and conflict with older xmms versions and install a
> symlink to the replacement.

this can and should only be done if there would be a drop in replacement
for xmms available. audacious, bmpx, beeing the most close to xmms, do
have partially different syntax wrt/ command line options.

now, a volunteer could come up and write a little shellscript for
wrapping arround that, but i don't think that someone wants to invest
time into that (if not, just tell me Wink

.

> I think xmms is to wide spread as that we just could wild guess how
> many users are affected and how they could cope with this.

i think, we can just place an appropriate note into lenny release notes
about the removal of xmms, together with the list of the three most
similar/popular alternatives (audacious, bmpx, and xmms2 that is).

Regards,
Daniel

--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann.RemoveThis@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Thomas Viehmann · External Since: Jun 03, 2005 Posts: 122

Andreas Tille wrote:
>> Removing the package from Debian will not affect current users that
>> much,
> While I perfectly agree that there are replacements for xmms that at
> first view look like a new version (for instnce audacious) many user
> might have links form their desktops or other hooks that just call
> /usr/bin/xmms. So this might affect a lot of users and especially
> those users that have no idea how to cope with a missing xmms in their
> PATH. IMHO the only way to fix this is to provide a transitional
> package that for instance depends from audacious (or other clones),
> provides xmms and conflict with older xmms versions and install a
> symlink to the replacement.

Those herding xmms symlinks on their desktop should be fully expected to
have xmms already installed and we are not forcing them to change that.
There is no added value in leaving an effectively unmaintained version
in the archive.

Kind regards

T.
--
Thomas Viehmann, http://thomas.viehmann.net/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Steve Greenland · External Since: Nov 16, 2004 Posts: 151

On 08-Jul-07, 07:07 (CDT), Andreas Tille <tillea DeleteThis @rki.de> wrote:

> might have links form their desktops or other hooks that just call
> /usr/bin/xmms. So this might affect a lot of users and especially
> those users that have no idea how to cope with a missing xmms in their
> PATH.

Removing a package from the Debian distribution does not cause it to be
removed from user's systems.

So your hypothetical user:

* can create desktop links and scripts
* will notice the xmms has been removed
* will care
* will and can track down (e.g.) audacious as a replacement

BUT

* is incapable of fixing/replacing the desktop links and scripts.

Hmmmm.

Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Andreas Tille · External Since: Nov 18, 2004 Posts: 227

On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Steve Greenland wrote:

> * can create desktop links and scripts

Yes.

> * will notice the xmms has been removed

Perhaps not because of some dependencies (perhaps because GTK 1.x
will be removed) it might be removed by aptitude / synaptics besides
a lot of other stuff.

> * will care
> * will and can track down (e.g.) audacious as a replacement
>
> BUT
>
> * is incapable of fixing/replacing the desktop links and scripts.

Well, my reasoning was, that we just try to wild guess about
user capabilities. I have just learned that user behave very
unexpected and exactly these users happen to be quite vocal
how broken Debian is. I just would like to give them lesser
chances to be correct when they claim this.

Kind regards

Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Steve Langasek · External Since: Dec 13, 2004 Posts: 2140

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> Well, my reasoning was, that we just try to wild guess about
> user capabilities. I have just learned that user behave very
> unexpected and exactly these users happen to be quite vocal
> how broken Debian is. I just would like to give them lesser
> chances to be correct when they claim this.

Anyone who claims Debian is broken for not shipping 6-year-old abandonware
in stable is an idiot who should be refuted, not pandered to.

--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon.DeleteThis@debian.org http://www.debian.org/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

Jon Dowland · External Since: Nov 23, 2006 Posts: 29

On Sun, Jul 08, 2007 at 11:50:25PM +0200, Andreas Tille
wrote:
> Perhaps not because of some dependencies (perhaps because
> GTK 1.x will be removed) it might be removed by aptitude /
> synaptics besides a lot of other stuff.

If a user removes the package themselves, even if they don't
realise it, via a dependency chain with GTK 1.x or something
similar, I don't have a great deal of sympathy.

--
Jon Dowland

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

David Moreno Garza · External Since: May 08, 2007 Posts: 7

Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS
> successors were ready for prime time. Are bmpx, audacious, and xmms2
> all usable now?

What's exactly a XMMS successor?

--
David Moreno Garza <damog DeleteThis @ciencias.unam.mx> | http://www.damog.net/
Use GPG.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

Daniel Jacobowitz · External Since: Dec 02, 2004 Posts: 269

On Tue, Jul 10, 2007 at 07:13:03PM -0500, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> Daniel Jacobowitz wrote:
> > When last I looked (some time ago), none of the different XMMS
> > successors were ready for prime time. Are bmpx, audacious, and xmms2
> > all usable now?
>
> What's exactly a XMMS successor?

All three of the ones I listed are descended from the XMMS code base,
the XMMS developers, or both. As far as I can tell, anyway.

--
Daniel Jacobowitz
CodeSourcery

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST DeleteThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster DeleteThis @lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Andreas Tille <tillea <at> rki.de> writes:

>
> On Sun, 8 Jul 2007, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
>
> > Removing the package from Debian will not affect current users that
> > much,
>
> While I perfectly agree that there are replacements for xmms that at
> first view look like a new version (for instnce audacious) many user
> might have links form their desktops or other hooks that just call
> /usr/bin/xmms. So this might affect a lot of users and especially
> those users that have no idea how to cope with a missing xmms in their
> PATH. IMHO the only way to fix this is to provide a transitional
> package that for instance depends from audacious (or other clones),
> provides xmms and conflict with older xmms versions and install a
> symlink to the replacement.
>

We are not an XMMS clone. Would you like us to remove the Winamp2 UI to drive
this point further? If this nonsense keeps happening, it's exactly what we will
be doing.

Architecturally, Audacious is much different than XMMS, it just sorta looks like
XMMS, which I think sends the wrong message, but whatever. The fact is that we
do not consider ourselves to be an XMMS clone or an XMMS replacement, and you
should strongly consider that before removing XMMS and providing a transitive
upgrade path to audacious.

I'm not asking much, just some sort of notification telling users that the
"replacement" they are installing is not really a replacement to XMMS, and as
such some "features" are implemented in a drastically different way.

Thanks,
William

> I think xmms is to wide spread as that we just could wild guess how
> many users are affected and how they could cope with this.

Somebody will just maintain their own repo with gtk1.2 and xmms if it's
required. This already happens in gentoo.

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Frank Lichtenheld · External Since: Nov 27, 2004 Posts: 577

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 02:40:53PM +0000, William Pitcock wrote:
> Andreas Tille <tillea <at> rki.de> writes:
> > I think xmms is to wide spread as that we just could wild guess how
> > many users are affected and how they could cope with this.
>
> Somebody will just maintain their own repo with gtk1.2 and xmms if it's
> required. This already happens in gentoo.

This is a valid solution for experienced xmms users that don't ever want
to switch. But this is not Debian's concern and I think the thread is about
solutions for people that primarily use Debian and just happen to have
chosen xmms as their music player of choice. If xmms gets removed before
lenny and they upgrade to it I guess they would welcome a hint which new
program to switch to.

Gruesse,
--
Frank Lichtenheld <djpig.TakeThisOut@debian.org>
www: http://www.djpig.de/

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Steve Greenland · External Since: Nov 16, 2004 Posts: 151

On 11-Jul-07, 09:40 (CDT), William Pitcock <nenolod.RemoveThis@sacredspiral.co.uk>
wrote:
> We are not an XMMS clone. Would you like us to remove the Winamp2 UI
> to drive this point further? If this nonsense keeps happening, it's
> exactly what we will be doing.

Like it or not, your software fits very much into the role played
by XMMS, such that someone who likes XMMS is more likely to choose
Audacious than, say, Rythymbox. That's why it's being discussed as a
"replacement". If we remove XMMS from the distribution, we have some
obligation to point users at similar tools.

Since you obviously modeled Audacious on XMMS (via BMP), I'm not sure
why you find such comparisons offensive.

Steve
--
Steve Greenland
The irony is that Bill Gates claims to be making a stable operating
system and Linus Torvalds claims to be trying to take over the
world. -- seen on the net

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.RemoveThis@lists.debian.org

Jon Dowland · External Since: Nov 23, 2006 Posts: 29

On Wed, Jul 11, 2007 at 02:23:35PM +0000, William Pitcock
wrote:
> Audacious' direction. Gentoo's (mis)handling of PR during
> this transitional time has resulted <snip> and several
> lame attempts to find security holes in Audacious with the
> explicit purpose of trying to get XMMS back.

Unless I've got my timeframes wrong, there were a few
successful attempts too. What's objectionable about people
trying to find security flaws in your software, apart from
their motivation for doing so?

--
Jon Dowland

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.TakeThisOut@lists.debian.org

Andreas Tille · External Since: Nov 18, 2004 Posts: 227

On Tue, 10 Jul 2007, Jon Dowland wrote:

> If a user removes the package themselves, even if they don't
> realise it, via a dependency chain with GTK 1.x or something
> similar, I don't have a great deal of sympathy.

Did you ever heard about the multi-user concept?

Kind regards

Andreas.

--
http://fam-tille.de

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Jon Dowland <lists <at> alcopop.org> writes:

> Unless I've got my timeframes wrong, there were a few
> successful attempts too. What's objectionable about people
> trying to find security flaws in your software, apart from
> their motivation for doing so?
>

There is nothing wrong with trying to find security flaws. However,
there have been no security flaws found in audacious itself, but instead
in the third party code we carry on. We have infact used these flaws to
motivate distributions to keep the latest audacious always available to their
userbase, e.g. "hey 1.2.2 has a ton of flaws, you might want to upgrade it
in your next release if you weren't doing so already."

My issue is that I find it patently offensive that people attack my work
simply because they wish to regain XMMS in their distribution. Maybe
I am wrong in thinking that way, but I'm pretty sure I'm not.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster.DeleteThis@lists.debian.org

William Pitcock · External Since: Jul 11, 2007 Posts: 14

Steve Greenland <steveg <at> moregruel.net> writes:

>
> Like it or not, your software fits very much into the role played
> by XMMS, such that someone who likes XMMS is more likely to choose
> Audacious than, say, Rythymbox. That's why it's being discussed as a
> "replacement". If we remove XMMS from the distribution, we have some
> obligation to point users at similar tools.
>
> Since you obviously modeled Audacious on XMMS (via BMP), I'm not sure
> why you find such comparisons offensive.
>
> Steve

Because every time distros try to do an xmms->audacious migration on us,
it causes additional load on our development effort because people file
bug reports and demand that we behave exactly like XMMS.

I don't find the comparison offensive, I find the result of the comparison
offensive, which is people dictating to us how our project will work. I cannot
work efficiently under those conditions, and I don't suspect anyone else
could either. So, it becomes a PR nightmare for us.

That's why I take offense and ask for very strong clarification that we are
not cloning XMMS to the letter. That's what "XMMS clone" means to these people.

William

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST RemoveThis @lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster RemoveThis @lists.debian.org