Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 25

Thread: Debian Port - Completed with Instructions

  1. #11
    anand is offline Zimbra Employee
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    274
    Rep Power
    9

    Default thoughts related to porting

    While we do not modify postfix/mysql/ldap per se, we do configure them
    significantly or we define schema or we add some data into their
    stores. In the case of postfix we define about half a dozen lookup
    tables. For openldap there are zimbra.schema and zimbra.ldif et al.
    MySQL needs to be loaded up with zimbra schema in db.sql. Tomcat also
    is heavily configured with Zimbra specific server.xml. The scripts
    inside the zimbra sources that manage mysql, postfix, etc config files
    make assumptions about all these components living inside /opt/zimbra.

    Think of it this way: we treat mysql, openldap and postfix as
    components embedded inside a Zimbra installation. Contrast this with
    a hypothetical Zimbra packaging that would use the mysql installed in
    /usr/bin.

    Our motivation is to make the install extremely simple for people that
    download the binaries. They should/do not have to scramble to get the
    correct version of postfix, openldap etc, that we have tested - or
    worry about conflicts with versions in /usr/bin.

    For porters, I suggest you try to rebuild the binaries we have inside
    ThirdParty for your platform. Eg, compile postfix the same way we do,
    and drop a binary inside ThirdParty, and make sure it installs inside
    /opt/zimbra/postfix in your platform (might need some Makefile edits
    if we have any RH/Fedora hardcodes :-). In other words - don't try to
    shoe-horn your distros' postfix into a Zimbra install - it's not that
    that's not possible - it's just a longer road.

    I am sure there are going to be folks who do not like our /opt/zimbra
    approach ("hey why aren't my Zimbra config files in /etc?" crowd). As
    a long time Linux user, I am not too fond of /opt requiring packages
    either. Zimbra install may get to an /etc friendly install at some
    point (and distros might beat us to it), but for now if you are
    porting, try to play the /opt/zimbra game and make your life simpler.

  2. #12
    dave_kempe is offline Partner (VAR/HSP)
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Sydney, Australia
    Posts
    291
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    I would be very interested in Debian packages. We are using Ubuntu for most everything now and packages that just work on Hoary would be much appreciated. I can get one of my guys who is a Debian Developer to sponsor zimbra for inclusion in Debian, but I think your license is not DSFG compliant... Maybe it is, if it is, then we may be able to apt-get install zimbra sooner rather than later

    a little help to evaluate at first is all we need I suppose.


    dave

  3. #13
    TankEnMate is offline Starter Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    9

    Default Debian Packages

    I can help / debug if needs be. I had a quick look at the main makefile and it is far from debian friendly . Anyone have any suggestions or code on how to proceed (other than the obvious dh-make)?
    It's nice to be in a position where people apologize because they
    assume there's humor in your work, based on past experience,
    but they're not sure where it is. -- Rob Pike

  4. #14
    KevinH's Avatar
    KevinH is offline Expert Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Mateo, CA
    Posts
    4,789
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TankEnMate
    I can help / debug if needs be. I had a quick look at the main makefile and it is far from debian friendly . Anyone have any suggestions or code on how to proceed (other than the obvious dh-make)?
    IMHO you should just wait for our next milestone or release. This should make it *much* easier to build on Debian. There's quite a number of Red Hat and Fedora ism's in our current system and we need to split this out before other OS's will be able to easily compile a full install.

  5. #15
    maximum is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by KevinH
    IMHO you should just wait for our next milestone or release. This should make it *much* easier to build on Debian. There's quite a number of Red Hat and Fedora ism's in our current system and we need to split this out before other OS's will be able to easily compile a full install.

    ...and the date of next milestone/release is.... ?? :-)

    best,
    MaX

  6. #16
    KevinH's Avatar
    KevinH is offline Expert Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    San Mateo, CA
    Posts
    4,789
    Rep Power
    18

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by maximum
    ...and the date of next milestone/release is.... ?? :-)

    best,
    MaX
    Hard to guess. It really depends on when we get a good chunk of bug fixes and new features in.

  7. #17
    at2000 is offline Starter Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Dear Zimbra Staff,

    I think you are too far away from expectation of Debian users. Let me list some points.
    1. Don't Repeat Yourself (tm). Debian already contains a lot of the packages. We definately prefer to use the one in Debian, especially when we already have some of them (e.g. postfix+spamassassin+clamav or tomcat) working in our environment.
    2. Security. One of the reasons we prefer to use the version in Debian is security. Do you think you can fix security holes in postfix faster than the Debian security team? I think you won't even fix them until your next version! However, we will consider installing your next version only after we have done enough testing on it and plan a deployment.
    3. We are the administrators. We, being system administrators, want to know what are running in our system, including what configuration changes have been applied to the packages from upstream. This is one more way to ensure our system is secure enough.
    4. Open-sourcedness. ZPL and ZAPL are not yet "open source". To quality for that, you need to submit them to OSI (http://opensource.org) for certification. This takes time, and if you cannot wait, just use licenses already available. I don't see any reason you need to re-invent a new license. Remember, Debian Free Software Guideline (DFSG) has very similar requirements with OSI's.
    In short, people using Debian are not like those who never touched Linux. We do not need one-step installation. SHOW US THE STEPS, no matter how many there are. We will follow them to patch our packages in Debian to make the components work. This can stop you from needing to "port" your application to yet another "distribution". If you show the steps, the distribution guys will make it work on their distributions, needless of your help. This is how open source works.

    In addition, choose a better license. Open source rides heavily on software reuse. Personally I like AjaxTK a lot. Some people like the WebClient a lot. Having such a strange license will just scare us to call our lawyers to interpret it, discourage us from putting creativity onto it, and limit your potential benefit, e.g. having a big community to co-develop the component with you.

  8. #18
    anand is offline Zimbra Employee
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    274
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    at2000, thanks for you input. Elsewhere in the forums we have definitely talked about a zimbra version that can be installed on your existing distro pieces - we will do this, we just don't have it today, etc.

    re: the license, ZPL is derived from MPL.

  9. #19
    maximum is offline Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Posts
    13
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by at2000
    Dear Zimbra Staff,

    I think you are too far away from expectation of Debian users. Let me list some points.
    1. Don't Repeat Yourself (tm). Debian already contains a lot of the packages. We definately prefer to use the one in Debian, especially when we already have some of them (e.g. postfix+spamassassin+clamav or tomcat) working in our environment.
    2. Security. One of the reasons we prefer to use the version in Debian is security. Do you think you can fix security holes in postfix faster than the Debian security team? I think you won't even fix them until your next version! However, we will consider installing your next version only after we have done enough testing on it and plan a deployment.
    3. We are the administrators. We, being system administrators, want to know what are running in our system, including what configuration changes have been applied to the packages from upstream. This is one more way to ensure our system is secure enough.
    4. Open-sourcedness. ZPL and ZAPL are not yet "open source". To quality for that, you need to submit them to OSI (http://opensource.org) for certification. This takes time, and if you cannot wait, just use licenses already available. I don't see any reason you need to re-invent a new license. Remember, Debian Free Software Guideline (DFSG) has very similar requirements with OSI's.
    In short, people using Debian are not like those who never touched Linux. We do not need one-step installation. SHOW US THE STEPS, no matter how many there are. We will follow them to patch our packages in Debian to make the components work. This can stop you from needing to "port" your application to yet another "distribution". If you show the steps, the distribution guys will make it work on their distributions, needless of your help. This is how open source works.

    In addition, choose a better license. Open source rides heavily on software reuse. Personally I like AjaxTK a lot. Some people like the WebClient a lot. Having such a strange license will just scare us to call our lawyers to interpret it, discourage us from putting creativity onto it, and limit your potential benefit, e.g. having a big community to co-develop the component with you.

    CLAP!!CLAP!!CLAP!!CLAP!!CLAP!!CLAP!!CLAP!!CLAP!!CL AP!!

    quoting the entire message

    ciao
    MaX

  10. #20
    at2000 is offline Starter Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    2
    Rep Power
    9

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by anand
    at2000, thanks for you input. Elsewhere in the forums we have definitely talked about a zimbra version that can be installed on your existing distro pieces - we will do this, we just don't have it today, etc.
    OK, so let's wait.


    Quote Originally Posted by anand
    re: the license, ZPL is derived from MPL.
    I understand the facts that:
    1. MPL is the most suitable license for you to derive from.
    2. MPL explicitly uses the terms like "Mozilla" within the license.
    So it tempted you to create a license very similar to MPL, with those "Mozilla" phrases replaced. However, simply being "derived from" MPL makes it not a OSI-approved license.

    Moreover, exhibits B in ZPL further deviates from MPL. Specifically, attribution of the original author inside each user interface screen is required. IANAL, and I cannot locate a requirement in DFSG or OSD which this violates. But still you need to have people review it. (This term does not exists in ZAPL 1.1, though.)

    If I were you, I will consider simply using Sun Common Development and Distribution License (CDDL) 1.0. It achieved very similar new-file requirements as MPL 1.1 (1.9 Modifications). Original attribution is also forced to be kept intact (3.3). Not as powerful and clear as your clause, but it is approved.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. initializing ldap...FAILED(256)ERROR
    By manjunath in forum Installation
    Replies: 39
    Last Post: 06-07-2013, 10:27 AM
  2. REAL Debian port
    By rexxmo in forum Installation
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 11-14-2006, 08:55 AM
  3. Error 256 on Installation
    By RuinExplorer in forum Installation
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-19-2006, 09:19 AM
  4. Getting problems in FC4 while instalation
    By kitty_bhoo in forum Installation
    Replies: 13
    Last Post: 09-12-2006, 10:34 PM
  5. Debian Port update?
    By soundmaster80 in forum Developers
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: 09-21-2005, 12:30 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •