pkgme test run over ARB apps

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello everybody,

I just finished conducting a test-run of all the apps (in all states of
myApps queues) of https://myapps.developer.ubuntu.com/dev/arb/ through
pkgme.

Here are the results.

36/124 (29%): .deb packages or tarballs of .deb contents
--------------------------------------------------------
   pkgme does not yet know how to deal with these.
   There is a dotdeb backend available, but I need to put some
   more work into understanding how it exactly works.


23/124 (18.5%): pkgme provides initial packaging
------------------------------------------------
   All of these apps are python apps, where pkgme successfully
   provides initial packaging, where some kinks need to be
   sorted out, but at least it's a base to start working with.
   In a lot of cases, the setup.py needs to be run locally to
   figure out the details.


13/124 (10.5%): qmake apps
--------------------------
   pkgme does not know how to deal with these. Do we need a bug
   report to track this?


9/124 (7.3%): flat files
------------------------
   These are apps with flat files (sometimes PDFs, sometimes some
   scripts, sometimes C files) without instructions how to build
   them. There is not a lot pkgme can do.


8/124 (6.5%): simple Makefile
-----------------------------
   These apps have a main-level Makefile and no other instructions
   how to build things. pkgme does not know what to do.


5/124 (5%): cmake (bug 1004505)
-------------------------------
   pkgme does have a cmake backend, but I ran into
   https://bugs.launchpad.net/pkgme/+bug/1004505 when I tried to build
   them.

5/124 (5%): autotools
---------------------
   pkgme does not know how to deal with autotools.


4/124 (3.2%): .jar files
------------------------
    pkgme did not know what to do with those .jar files.

3/124 (2.4%): pascal apps
-------------------------
    pkgme did not know what to do with pascal apps.

3/124 (2.4%): ruby apps
-----------------------
    pkgme did not know what to do with ruby apps.

2/124 (1.6%): provided packaging, but bug 1007344
-------------------------
    These were python apps as well, but when running pkgme, it ran into
    https://bugs.launchpad.net/pkgme/+bug/1007344 - once worked around
    the issue, pkgme was happy again.

2/124 (1.6%): couldn't find source
----------------------------------
    For 2 apps, I couldn't find the source.

1/124 (0.8%): vala+makefile
---------------------------
    pkgme didn't know what to do with vala+makefile apps.

1/124 (0.8%): cmake (bug 1007355)
---------------------------------
    pkgme's cmake backend ran into
    https://bugs.launchpad.net/pkgme/+bug/1007355 when trying to
    generate a source package.

1/124 (0.8%): waf
-----------------
    pkgme didn't know what to do with a waf project.

1/124 (0.8%): .exe file
-----------------------
    pkgme didn't know what to do with a .exe file.

1/124 (0.8%): configure+Rakefile
--------------------------------
    pkgme didn't know what to do with a configure+Rakefile project.

1/124 (0.8%): no idea
---------------------
    In one case even I had no idea how the project could be built.

1/124 (0.8%): Basic
-------------------
    pkgme didn't know what to do with a Basic project.

1/124 (0.8%): binary files
--------------------------
    One package contained binary files, where maybe the binary backend
    could do something, but as it was out-of-scope for the ARB, I
    didn't test it.



Summary:
========

While the list above reads like a catastrophe at first glance, it's
actually not. The list above contains all apps, even the rejected ones,
so a lot of breakage was to be expected.

The good news is that almost all the python distutils apps passed a run
through pkgme and that once some issues in the cmake backend are worked
out, there will probably be a bunch of cmake apps as well.

Also with a list of specific bug reports, it might become easier to
start fixing things, and as I have looked at the code and tinkered (just
a little bit) with it I must say that it's a pleasure to work with.


I'd like to thank everyone who put hard work into making apps work in
Ubuntu.

If you want access to the Google Doc with the complete analysis, please
go to
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1H_nUFn2_iLVqs_1gzCCs9XjyQwEyzSWIGmF7ElvLnbo/edit
and request access.

Thanks a lot everyone.

Have a great day,
 Daniel

-- 
Get involved in Ubuntu development! developer.ubuntu.com/packaging
And follow @ubuntudev on identi.ca/twitter.com/facebook.com/gplus.to