Re: Packages of icecast 2.4-beta?

On 03/28/2013 01:09 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> Hi Thomas,
>
>> My preferred approach would be to explain how to merge the debian
>> packaging with a more recent tar-ball and rebuild a package out of this.
> We can provide a wiki page on that, sure, although we would probably go
> one step further and actually provide the packages for our target
> distros too (Debian stable/testing and Ubuntu 10.04/12.04 LTS).

That's fine too. Do you have the infrastructure to stay current and 
rebuild e.g. on dependency changes? Just asking out of curiosity.
Actually I now wonder if using OBS could make this task easier. We could 
have a community team and OBS should be able to produce packages for 
most main stream distros and rebuild them automagically.
build.opensuse.org - they cover at least: opensuse, suse, debian, 
ubuntu, fedora, centos/rhel and mandriva.
Also you can easily fork and customize a package under own account where 
desired.
Thoughts?

>
>> a PPA approach might be easier for interested parties.
> We provide apt.sourcefabric.org which is not a PPA as such, it's a
> regular apt repo.

Sure, I guess people would be happy to see that and as long as there are 
no major patches to them we'll be happy to support those builds in the 
community.

>
>> When it comes to the 2.4 beta I actually made the conscious decision to
>> version it so that no extensions to the version number itself are
>> necessary to ensure a clean upgrade path.
> We usually handle that by including ~ in the suffix of the deb version
> number, which makes the version subordinate to any official
> Debian/Ubuntu release later. For example:
>
> liquidsoap_1.1.0~wheezy~sfo-1_amd64.deb
>
> counts as older than:
>
> liquidsoap_1.1.0-1_amd64.deb
>
> for upgrade purposes.

Yes, that's absolutely fine, just wanted to note that I had taken 
precaution to avoid any possible problems, too.

>> Beta1 is 2.3.99.0
> Is a beta2 on the horizon? Or are there fixes since beta1 we should
> include as patches?
Yeah, I should have rolled one a while ago, there are some issues that 
are creeping out and more testing and eyes on those would actually be 
welcome!
I promise to do beta2 asap, likely tomorrow.


>
>>>> A possible alternative would be for us to provide an Icecast 2.4-beta
>>>> demo server that our community could use for test streams.
>> Well that's something in your decision scope that I can't comment on. ;-)
> Would it be generally useful to the Icecast community to have a 2.4 test
> server available? Or do people generally have spare machines to use for
> this?

That might actually be quite valuable for interested people to get a 
feeling without having to set up too many things at once, so I very much 
welcome the effort. Many moving parts are a headache if you are 
unfamiliar with a subject.
Icecast should out of the box provide the configurability to avoid 
making this a free-for-all abuse box, e.g. time limit for listeners, 
maybe also source timeout and max number of listeners.
I may be able to provide one too in the near future. We just received a 
donation of nice machines from Intel at Xiph and they will be installed 
hopefully soon.

Cheers

Thomas