Hi,
Over the past few months, I've been working with LFaraone, Faidon, and Moritz on updating the super old 1.19.x Debian package of MediaWiki to use a more modern version (currently 1.25.x) and just generally improve the quality of it. (Yes, it uses MySQL by default, not postgres!)
It's currently waiting in the "new" queue[1], but if you'd like to test it out, I've uploaded the debs at [2]. If you find any bugs or have feature requests, you can let me know or file a request in the MediaWiki-Debian[3] Phabricator project. The debian/ files used to create the package can be found in Gerrit in the mediawiki/debian repository[4].
[1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html [2] https://people.wikimedia.org/~legoktm/debian/ [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-debian/ [4] https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/projects/mediawiki/debian,dashboards/defaul...
-- Legoktm
Excellent :-)
Any reason for using a non-LTS version? Given how long packages are live in Debian, you'd be signing yourself up for maintenance past what upstream can supply ...
- d.
On Sunday, 10 January 2016, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
Hi,
Over the past few months, I've been working with LFaraone, Faidon, and Moritz on updating the super old 1.19.x Debian package of MediaWiki to use a more modern version (currently 1.25.x) and just generally improve the quality of it. (Yes, it uses MySQL by default, not postgres!)
It's currently waiting in the "new" queue[1], but if you'd like to test it out, I've uploaded the debs at [2]. If you find any bugs or have feature requests, you can let me know or file a request in the MediaWiki-Debian[3] Phabricator project. The debian/ files used to create the package can be found in Gerrit in the mediawiki/debian repository[4].
[1] https://ftp-master.debian.org/new.html [2] https://people.wikimedia.org/~legoktm/debian/ [3] https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/tag/mediawiki-debian/ [4]
https://gerrit.wikimedia.org/r/#/projects/mediawiki/debian,dashboards/defaul...
-- Legoktm
MediaWiki-distributors mailing list MediaWiki-distributors@lists.wikimedia.org javascript:; https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/mediawiki-distributors
On Sun, Jan 10, 2016 at 12:53 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Excellent :-)
Any reason for using a non-LTS version? Given how long packages are live in Debian, you'd be signing yourself up for maintenance past what upstream can supply ...
I can't speak for Lego, but it seems to me like an acceptable tradeoff. It looks like we have these choices: A. Support security patches for 1.25 for the Debian LTS lifecycle B. Support security patches for 1.23 (our last LTS) for the Debian LTS lifecycle C. Support some other MediaWiki version for the Debian LTS lifecycle D. Somehow try reviving the old 1.19 package and support that for the Debian LTS lifecycle E. Abandon current MediaWiki Debian users entirely
Choice A seems like a very respectable choice to me. It implicitly adds 1.25 to our LTS support load, but I think we can realign our LTS cycles later and deal with the added overhead now (or rather, a couple years from now). I'm going to guess that a couple of years from now we'll appreciate having chosen the more recent choice.
Rob
Rob
Hi,
On 01/10/2016 12:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Excellent :-)
Any reason for using a non-LTS version? Given how long packages are live in Debian, you'd be signing yourself up for maintenance past what upstream can supply ...
At the time we started work on the new package, 1.25 was the most recent stable release. Packaging 1.23.x would have been an option, however it was already a year old, and 1.27 would be released in a year.
Our current plan is to first get the 1.25.x package into Debian (the mediawiki package was removed a few months ago due to lack of maintainers), and when 1.27 is released, update it to use that. For Debian purposes, we'll want 1.27 to get into stretch, and continue supporting that.
But the other part of this project is making sure that the packaging code doesn't get super out of date and having it updated for new MediaWiki versions - so we can provide debs for people who want to use newer versions, whether or not they go into the Debian archive.
-- Legoktm
On 10 January 2016 at 20:04, Legoktm legoktm.wikipedia@gmail.com wrote:
On 01/10/2016 12:53 AM, David Gerard wrote:
Any reason for using a non-LTS version? Given how long packages are live in Debian, you'd be signing yourself up for maintenance past what upstream can supply ...
Our current plan is to first get the 1.25.x package into Debian (the mediawiki package was removed a few months ago due to lack of maintainers), and when 1.27 is released, update it to use that. For Debian purposes, we'll want 1.27 to get into stretch, and continue supporting that.
Sounds good.
Or indeed robla's idea of declaring 1.25 an LTS, which would be awesome if the VE in it is similarly supported.
Is there any chance of this making Ubuntu 16.04, or are we already too late?
But the other part of this project is making sure that the packaging code doesn't get super out of date and having it updated for new MediaWiki versions - so we can provide debs for people who want to use newer versions, whether or not they go into the Debian archive.
Yeah. And even given the odd Debian ways of doing some things (e.g., Apache), it would be fantastic to have a Debian/Ubuntu package that doesn't require a long string of caveats on its mediawiki.org page. (I speak here as a sysadmin who presently installs from tarball and would be *delighted* to install from apt-get.)
- d.
Aloha,
I'm performing thread necromancy to ask for some help.
On 01/10/2016 12:34 PM, David Gerard wrote:
Is there any chance of this making Ubuntu 16.04, or are we already too late?
I submitted a backport request so it'll be in xenial-backports: https://bugs.launchpad.net/xenial-backports/+bug/1637331, but it hasn't seen any action yet.
Does anyone know any people involved with this part of Ubuntu (or in general) that could help out?
-- Legoktm
mediawiki-distributors@lists.wikimedia.org