Re. subsurface: FTBFS in experimental

[Dirk Hohndel]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 01:21:21PM +0200, Pierre-Yves Chibon wrote:
> > > Well apparently subsurface is now targeted towards Win/Mac[0] (no
> > > binaries for Linux)... so the "experience" for FLOSS users will simply
> > > be that there is no subsurface anymore.
> > 
> > No, we have binaries available for Ubuntu, Fedora, OpenSUSE, Mint, and, of
> > course, Debian. And we have a fully automated build script in the works
> > that builds Subsurface on many other distributions that we haven't been
> > able to add to our list. There's an ArchLinux AUR based on that. Etc.
> 
> You are also building the Fedora and OpenSuse packages on the same system while
> if they are both RPM based they do use different macros and have different
> guidelines.

Indeed. What a pain in the rear. And for what purpose, if I may ask?
We have a few dozen people who run Subsurface on Fedora. Even fewer on
OpenSUSE. Even fewer on Debian. Yet each insists on their own rules, their
own conditions their own constraints.

We come back to my original statement. The choices are
a) let the distros decide what's good for the Subsurface user, each distro
with different bugs, different features enabled, a different user
experience
b) attempt to provide the same user experience to everyone across the
dozen OSs that we support

Here's the irony that Lubomir was pointing out. I have ONE installer that
runs on Windows XP from 15 years ago and on Windows 10. Happily runs on
both 32 and 64 bit systems. Provides the same user experience to thousands
of users. AND ISN'T EVEN BUILT ON WINDOWS, DOESN'T USE MICROSOFT'S
PREFERRED WAY OF CREATING INSTALLERS. And people are happy and don't
complain.

And then there is Linux. 1/5th of the number of users that Windows has
(for Subsurface). Even though on Windows there are tons of alternatives
and on Linux there's nothing else. And we have all the developers here
mixed into those numbers. And the fact that Linus started this certainly
has gotten quite a few people interested in Subsurface. And we currently
create 4 packages for Ubuntu (we can no longer build on 12.04 - just three
years old - and Ubuntu no longer allows packages for 14.10). We reuse the
same for Debian and have been called names for doing so. We have four
packages for Fedora (F20 no longer builds). Six packages for SuSE. Etc,
etc.

> I looked quickly over the spec file and I call already tell that the spec file
> used would not be valid on Fedora, even more fun the source rpm doesn't even
> build on Fedora.

Patches welcome. Please help me make this better - I already have a
contributor helping me with making sure the OpenSUSE packages are
acceptable to them.

> So no, I would not install your binary on my machine but then again, I am maybe
> just too experienced in this domain, maybe most of our users don't care of these
> things.

Pierre, I really appreciate the work that you have done for Subsurface.
Here's a hypothetical question for you. Assume you bring ten thousand
divers in a room and you ask them "what do you prefer, making sure that
the source rpm of your dive log software builds on your Linux distribution
of choice or that your dive software has the features that are discussed
in its manual and the user experience matches what is documented in the
manual and on their web site?". What do you think the answers will be?

My guess is 90% will say "I don't care, I don't log my dives / only paper
log books are valid". The remaining 1000 will go with option b. The
likelihood that there is a single person in that group of ten thousand
random divers who even KNOWS what source RPM is has gone up lately, but
the likelihood that there is someone who cares about these inner details
enough to stop using Subsurface is miniscule.

> This whole situation is kinda sad to me. I love subsurface and what it allowed
> me to do. I maintain subsurface and libdivecomputer in Fedora but I guess I
> won't be able to soon. I could have integrated your patches in libdivecomputer
> (already compiled as a static library, for subsurface), we could have worked
> with the libmarble folks to integrate the desired changes, we could have
> specified an exact version of libgit2 required, but no, I've been asked to just
> forget the time I invested in this and instead use a binary provided that
> doesn't even build on my OS.

ArchLinux still has their own package. I worked with the maintainer and
it's built using our libs. I'll be more than happy to do the same with
you. The Debian / Ubuntu situation was especially annoying as they were
still shipping Subsurface 4.2. Which is why I asked them to drop it.
You on the other hand have always been extremely good at keeping things
updated.

I'll tell you the same thing I'm telling everyone else. If we can find a
way to create a consistent user experience for our users I'll be more than
happy to work with you and figure out a solution. So if you would like to
make sure that Subsurface in Fedora matches what we build for all the
other OSs, by all means, please work with me. Patches are welcome, I'll be
happy to integrate necessary changes. But I would like to make sure that
we build against the versions of libdivecomputer and libssrfmarblewidget
that we use in the official version and that we use libgit2 0.23 (built
against libcurl) and the latest libgrantlee - as otherwise cloud storage
and the new printing system won't work.

So no, I don't insist that distros drop Subsurface (I can't do that
anyway, it's open source). I politely ask that they don't ship things that
deliever a different user experience than our other builds.

Thanks for all your help over the years. It's really appreciated. I hope
we can find a way to continue to keep you interested in Subsurface.

/D