Debian Bug report logs - #704035
O: tuxcmd -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager using GTK+ 2

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>

Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:39:02 UTC

Severity: normal

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, carnil@debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#704035; Package wnpp. (Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:39:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to carnil@debian.org, wnpp@debian.org. (Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:39:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: RFA: tuxcmd -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager using GTK+ 2
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:35:25 +0100
Package: wnpp
Severity: normal

Hi

I do not use tuxcmd (and tuxcmd-modules) on day to day base and it
might be better if someone who actively uses it take over ownership
for tuxcmd.

Note: Upstream is responsive on mails, but also is short on time for
tuxcmd development (thus the really infrequent updates). I also
suggest to only release versions coordinated/acked by upstream (even
if tuxcmd/tuxcmd-modules are tagged with same version in git, they
might not work well together everytime. 0.6.70 in this case).

There is also http://bugs.debian.org/556440 left open with the reason
why tuxcmd-modules-unrar cannot be packaged for Debian for now, at
least.

Regards,
Salvatore



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#704035; Package wnpp. (Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:45:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Wed, 27 Mar 2013 06:45:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 704035@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
To: 704035@bugs.debian.org, 704036@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Re: Bug#704035: RFA: tuxcmd -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager using GTK+ 2
Date: Wed, 27 Mar 2013 07:43:13 +0100
Note: for tuxcmd-modules there is #704036. If you take over tuxcmd
take also over tuxcmd-modules.

Regards,
Salvatore



Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#704035; Package wnpp. (Fri, 10 May 2013 20:30:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Fri, 10 May 2013 20:30:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #15 received at 704035@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>
To: 704035@bugs.debian.org, 704036@bugs.debian.org
Subject: Orphaning tuxcmd and tuxcmd-modules
Date: Fri, 10 May 2013 22:27:28 +0200
Control: retitle 704035 O: tuxcmd -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager using GTK+ 2 
Control: retitle 704036 O: tuxcmd-modules -- VFS modules for tuxcmd file manager

Hi!

I now have orphaned both tuxcmd and tuxcmd-modules. I hope they find
somebody who can take care of them and actually use them more than I,
or that they can be usefull for someone.

I tried to do some cleanup for tuxcmd, but there is still some
improvement left (the last upload I did was in 2009). I furthermore
have left #698761 open and tagged help. If I see it correctly,
something should be implemented, so that every time fpc get's a major
version bump, also tuxcmd should/can be rebuilt?

Again, if you take care of tuxcmd, please at same time also take
tuxcmd-modules.

Regards,
Salvatore



Changed Bug title to 'O: tuxcmd -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager using GTK+ 2' from 'RFA: tuxcmd -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager using GTK+ 2' Request was from Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> to 704035-submit@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 10 May 2013 20:30:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#704035; Package wnpp. (Sat, 03 Aug 2013 06:57:13 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Sat, 03 Aug 2013 06:57:13 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #22 received at 704035@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
To: Tomas Bzatek <tbzatek@users.sourceforge.net>
Cc: 704035@bugs.debian.org, Debian Pascal packaging <pkg-pascal-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Subject: release state of tuxcmd
Date: Sat, 03 Aug 2013 08:54:31 +0200
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Tomas,

I am considering to take up maintenance of the tuxcmd package in Debian
[0] which is currently unmaintained [1]. We recently started a package
team to support packages written in pascal [2] and I think the Debian
tuxcmd package should have it's home there.

Looking at the sourceforge website [3], the latest release I see is
0.6.70 (2009), while your git repository seems to feature up to 0.6.78.
Could you please elaborate on your release strategy? I am fine with
taking git tags if that is how you currently work.

You seem to not have been too busy with tuxcmd lately (one commit in the
last 8 months). How do you see the future of tuxcmd? I assume you are in
"maintenance mode". If I would get tuxcmd code related bugs in Debian,
are you likely to help solving them, or would it mean that I had to deep
dive into the code myself (not that coding is a problem per se, but of
course you are way more familiar with the code).

Paul

[0] http://www.debian.org/
[1] http://bugs.debian.org/704035
[2] http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-pascal
[3] http://sourceforge.net/projects/tuxcmd/

[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#704035; Package wnpp. (Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:03:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to tbzatek@users.sourceforge.net:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Mon, 05 Aug 2013 13:03:09 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #27 received at 704035@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Tomas Bzatek <tbzatek@users.sourceforge.net>
To: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
Cc: 704035@bugs.debian.org, Debian Pascal packaging <pkg-pascal-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Subject: Re: release state of tuxcmd
Date: Mon, 05 Aug 2013 14:51:09 +0200
On Sat, 2013-08-03 at 08:54 +0200, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Hi Tomas,
> 
> I am considering to take up maintenance of the tuxcmd package in Debian
> [0] which is currently unmaintained [1]. We recently started a package
> team to support packages written in pascal [2] and I think the Debian
> tuxcmd package should have it's home there.
> 
> Looking at the sourceforge website [3], the latest release I see is
> 0.6.70 (2009), while your git repository seems to feature up to 0.6.78.
> Could you please elaborate on your release strategy? I am fine with
> taking git tags if that is how you currently work.
> 
> You seem to not have been too busy with tuxcmd lately (one commit in the
> last 8 months). How do you see the future of tuxcmd? I assume you are in
> "maintenance mode". If I would get tuxcmd code related bugs in Debian,
> are you likely to help solving them, or would it mean that I had to deep
> dive into the code myself (not that coding is a problem per se, but of
> course you are way more familiar with the code).
> 
> Paul
> 
> [0] http://www.debian.org/
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/704035
> [2] http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-pascal
> [3] http://sourceforge.net/projects/tuxcmd/
> 

Hi Paul,

thanks for keeping the distro packages alive.

My release strategy is random at most, versions are incremented when
there are significant changes. That itself doesn't mean the sources are
ready for release, usually a period of testing and polishing precede new
releases.

At the current state the git master is broken, there are unfinished
things and missing functionality (core error reporting rewrite,
half-done). Staying with official releases is advised.

There have not been many changes in the past years, I have zero free
time for tuxcmd, even if I have tons of ideas and plans. I don't see a
future of this project, though I'm still actively using it. Frankly I
have hard time seeing gtk2 and gtk3 bright future either.

I'm fine with accepting patches, either bugfixes or feature
enhancements. It's always better to discuss in advance if there's
something bigger. But spending time on writing new code (or rewriting in
order to fix something) is out of question for me I'm afraid.

Cheers,
-- 
Tomas Bzatek





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#704035; Package wnpp. (Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:45:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Fri, 24 Jan 2014 09:45:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #32 received at 704035@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
To: Graham Inggs <graham@nerve.org.za>, 736085@bugs.debian.org
Cc: 704035@bugs.debian.org, Debian Pascal packaging <pkg-pascal-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#736085: RFS: doublecmd/0.5.8-1 -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager
Date: Fri, 24 Jan 2014 10:42:15 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Control: owner 736085 !

On 19-01-14 16:41, Graham Inggs wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my update to package "doublecmd":

Interesting that I have missed this the first time that you did this
work. Funny thing is that we are trying to get things related to
FreePascal into one team, so I invite you to have a look at pkg-pascal
on Alioth [1].

Furthermore, there is a package called tuxcmd, which is also a
twin-panel file manager and also written in FreePascal. doublecmd
wouldn't be a fork of that project (which has stalled upstream)?

If upstream of doublecmd is really active, maybe we should drop tuxcmd
altogether (it is orphaned). If we do, maybe we could help people
migrate in the next release by handling this properly.

Could you investigate (if you have the time of course) if tuxcmd has
features that are still lacking in doublecmd?

Paul

[1] http://alioth.debian.org/projects/pkg-pascal


[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#704035; Package wnpp. (Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:51:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Graham Inggs <graham@nerve.org.za>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Mon, 27 Jan 2014 07:51:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #37 received at 704035@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Graham Inggs <graham@nerve.org.za>
To: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>, 736085@bugs.debian.org
Cc: 704035@bugs.debian.org, Debian Pascal packaging <pkg-pascal-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#736085: RFS: doublecmd/0.5.8-1 -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager
Date: Mon, 27 Jan 2014 09:49:35 +0200
Hi Paul

On 24/01/2014 11:42, Paul Gevers wrote:
> Interesting that I have missed this the first time that you did this
> work. Funny thing is that we are trying to get things related to
> FreePascal into one team, so I invite you to have a look at pkg-pascal
> on Alioth.

I'd be happy to maintain doublecmd and doublecmd-help packages as part 
of the pkg-pascal team.

> Furthermore, there is a package called tuxcmd, which is also a
> twin-panel file manager and also written in FreePascal. doublecmd
> wouldn't be a fork of that project (which has stalled upstream)?

I checked with upstream and doublecmd is not a fork of tuxcmd, but 
rather a fork of Seksi Commander [1].
I believe the visual similarity of doublecmd and tuxcmd is simply due to 
them both being inspired by Total Commander and Midnight Commander.

> If upstream of doublecmd is really active, maybe we should drop tuxcmd
> altogether (it is orphaned). If we do, maybe we could help people
> migrate in the next release by handling this properly.

Would/could we do this even if doublecmd is not a fork of tuxcmd?

> Could you investigate (if you have the time of course) if tuxcmd has
> features that are still lacking in doublecmd?

Is this still required, seeing that doublecmd is not a fork of tuxcmd?

Regards
Graham


[1] http://netcode.cz/projects/seksicmd/




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#704035; Package wnpp. (Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:51:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Thu, 30 Jan 2014 12:51:04 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #42 received at 704035@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Paul Gevers <elbrus@debian.org>
To: 736085-done@bugs.debian.org
Cc: 704035@bugs.debian.org, Debian Pascal packaging <pkg-pascal-devel@lists.alioth.debian.org>
Subject: Re: Bug#736085: RFS: doublecmd/0.5.8-1 -- twin-panel (commander-style) file manager
Date: Thu, 30 Jan 2014 13:46:45 +0100
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
Hi Graham,

On 27-01-14 08:49, Graham Inggs wrote:
> Hi Paul
> 
> On 24/01/2014 11:42, Paul Gevers wrote:
>> Interesting that I have missed this the first time that you did this
>> work. Funny thing is that we are trying to get things related to
>> FreePascal into one team, so I invite you to have a look at pkg-pascal
>> on Alioth.
> 
> I'd be happy to maintain doublecmd and doublecmd-help packages as part
> of the pkg-pascal team.

So, please request to be added to the team via the web-interface and
subscribe to the e-mail list. I will acknowledge when I receive the request.

>> If upstream of doublecmd is really active, maybe we should drop tuxcmd
>> altogether (it is orphaned). If we do, maybe we could help people
>> migrate in the next release by handling this properly.
>
> Would/could we do this even if doublecmd is not a fork of tuxcmd?

Difficult question, but I believe the answer is yes. As tuxcmd is
currently unmaintained in Debian, and hardly supported upstream, I think
it is warranted to request for removal (or depending on the scheme we
intent to follow, an adoption). If doublecmd is a viable replacement of
tuxcmd, we can help Debian users to find a replacement which can be
supported from the Debian point of view. I must admit, I haven't fully
figured out how we should do this the right way™.

>> Could you investigate (if you have the time of course) if tuxcmd has
>> features that are still lacking in doublecmd?
> 
> Is this still required, seeing that doublecmd is not a fork of tuxcmd?

If you feel my response above is not fully ridiculous, the answer is yes.

But in the mean time, as discussed in private, build, signed and
uploaded for now.

Paul


[signature.asc (application/pgp-signature, attachment)]

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 24 22:49:50 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.