Icecast dev - Mar 2013 - Packages of icecast 2.4-beta?

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).
> 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.
> 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.
> Beta1 is 2.3.99.0
Is a beta2 on the horizon? Or are there fixes since beta1 we should
include as patches?
>> > 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?

Cheers!

Daniel

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

Hi Thomas,
> Do you have the infrastructure to stay current and rebuild e.g. on
> dependency changes?
Yes, we use pbuilder-dist for this. We are providing backports of
related packages including liquidsoap, silan (a new silence detector
application), and libopus0, as well as Airtime itself.
> 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.
Following their search tool I only found SuSE packages:

http://software.opensuse.org/package/icecast

but if they are willing to help, it's all good.
>> 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.
I agree it wouldn't be helpful to patch with unofficial changes during a
beta cycle. We usually only patch for production users between official
releases, but in consultation with the upstream developers (for example,
we have done this for liquidsoap).
>> 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!
Great, we will give it a try :-)
>> 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.
OK, I have suggested this to the Airtime team.
> Icecast should out of the box provide the configurability to avoid
> making this a free-for-all abuse box
Debian has tightened up the source/relay/admin passwords now. You get
prompted for the passwords you would like to set at install time, via
debconf, in the latest version.
> e.g. time limit for listeners,
> maybe also source timeout and max number of listeners.
We currently set listener limits for our managed hosting, so that
shouldn't be a problem.
> 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.
Airtime supports up to three independent output streams so it's actually
very easy for users to set up an alternative test stream. I'm sure the
Airtime community would provide some authentic test material if we asked
them to.

Cheers!

Daniel