Include ogre-next in Ubuntu Jammy

[Jose Luis Rivero]

Please include the software ogre-next in Ubuntu Jammy.

* Package name : ogre-next
* Version : 2.2.5
* Upstream Author : https://github.com/OGRECave/ogre-next/blob/master/AUTHORS
* URL : https://github.com/OGRECave/ogre-next
* License : MIT
* Programming Lang: C++
* Description : Ogre is a 3D graphics rendering engine (next generation)

The Ogre project was divided into Ogre and Ogre-next, this last one hosts the old 2.x branches. Both are maintained and developed and incompatible with each other.

For more details see:
https://www.ogre3d.org/about/what-version-to-choose

Packaging for Jammy is ready:

* 2.2.5 in PPA https://launchpad.net/~j-rivero/+archive/ubuntu/jammy-packages/+packages (amd64, arm64, armhf).
* I've also updated to bzr https://code.launchpad.net/~j-rivero/+junk/ogre-next
  * After review comments, follow in https://launchpad.net/~j-rivero/+archive/ubuntu/ogre-next-jammy

[Brian Murray (brian-murray)]

*** This is an automated message ***

This bug is tagged needs-packaging which identifies it as a request for a new package in Ubuntu. As a part of the managing needs-packaging bug reports specification, https://wiki.ubuntu.com/QATeam/Specs/NeedsPackagingBugs, all needs-packaging bug reports have Wishlist importance. Subsequently, I'm setting this bug's status to Wishlist.

[Jose Luis Rivero (j-rivero)]

I added packaging in:

* 2.2.5 in PPA https://launchpad.net/~j-rivero/+archive/ubuntu/jammy-packages/+packages (amd64, arm64, armhf).
* I've also updated to bzr https://code.launchpad.net/~j-rivero/+junk/ogre-next

[Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100)]

I'll look into this in a moment, thank you for preparing the packages in the PPA.

[Jose Luis Rivero (j-rivero)]

> I'll look into this in a moment, thank you for preparing the packages in the PPA.

Thanks Łukasz. Let me know if I can help.

[Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100)]

Ok, I had a brief look through the copyright - seems to be in order (quite huge, but I could help myself out with a diff against ogre-1.12). The debian/watch file works, is able to re-download and re-package the current source (with a small remark) and fetch new versions from upstream. The source package is lintian clean and most patches have DEB3 headers.

Generally it feels like the package is good to go, but we'll need to adjust the versioning. Just a few questions/remarks before I proceed further:
 * Remark re: the .orig tarball. Even though I think this is generally *fine* but when re-downloading (and auto-repacking) with uscan the current 2.2.5 tarball, there are a few additional files present in the tarball in comparison to the tarball used in the PPA upload (there's some .hgignore, .travis.yaml etc. files in it). I would normally expect to get the exact same tarball contents from running uscan. In this case I think it's fine, but this might mean that the debian/copyright exclude list needs to be modified or, otherwise, no hand modifications done to the source please.
 * I see that in Debian new a previous version of ogre-next is staged - ogre-next_2.2.5+dfsg3-1. From what I can tell that version has a different set of binary packages (libogre-next2.2 instead of the set of libogrenext*2.2.5 binaries). Would it be possible for you to submit -2 to Debian NEW? In case this gets accepted by Debian, it would be troublesome if a different set of binary packages was generated there.
 * Regarding that point above ^ - the binary package name numbers feel a bit confusing, with their description and purpose not being quite clear. Are those the 'final' binary package names? If so, could we expand their individual long descriptions to be a bit more clear on what their purpose is?
 * The version number needs fixing. 2.2.5+dfsg3-2ubuntu2 means that Debian has 2.2.5+dfsg3-2 and we introduce an ubuntu delta on top. Since this package is not accepted into Debian as of yet, the version number needs to be 2.2.5+dfsg3-0ubuntu2 (or, possibly, -0ubuntu1), with -0ubuntuX indicating 'Debian doesn't have this yet, but Ubuntu does'. This makes it easier for us to switch to Debian once the package is available there as well.

Could you take a look at those? Thank you.

[Jose Luis Rivero (j-rivero)]

Thanks for review Łukasz.

Fixes and comments inline. With the requested change in the version number, I'm using a different PPA to upload the version since it is lower than the one in jammy-package PPA. New one is: https://launchpad.net/~j-rivero/+archive/ubuntu/ogre-next-jammy

> Remark re: the .orig tarball. Even though I think this is generally *fine* but when re-downloading (and auto-repacking) with uscan the current 2.2.5 tarball, there are a few additional files present in the tarball in comparison to the tarball used in the PPA upload (there's some .hgignore, .travis.yaml etc. files in it). I would normally expect to get the exact same tarball contents from running uscan. In this case I think it's fine, but this might mean that the debian/copyright exclude list needs to be modified or, otherwise, no hand modifications done to the source please.

The explanation of the difference comes from the fact of having that configuration to exclude some files in my ~/.gbp.conf file. I added what I found to the d/copyright for completeness.

> * I see that in Debian new a previous version of ogre-next is staged - ogre-next_2.2.5+dfsg3-1. From what I can tell that version has a different set of binary packages (libogre-next2.2 instead of the set of libogrenext*2.2.5 binaries). Would it be possible for you to submit -2 to Debian NEW? In case this gets accepted by Debian, it would be troublesome if a different set of binary packages was generated there.

I requested to my usual sponsors in Debian to have the package re-uploaded.

> * Regarding that point above ^ - the binary package name numbers feel a bit confusing, with their description and purpose not being quite clear. Are those the 'final' binary package names? If so, could we expand their individual long descriptions to be a bit more clear on what their purpose is?

I've added the reason why we are using the whole version in the package names. In summary: upstream does not guarantee ABI compatibility even in patch version bumps. The whole information is available in the README.Debian.

> * The version number needs fixing. 2.2.5+dfsg3-2ubuntu2 means that Debian has 2.2.5+dfsg3-2 and we introduce an ubuntu delta on top. Since this package is not accepted into Debian as of yet, the version number needs to be 2.2.5+dfsg3-0ubuntu2 (or, possibly, -0ubuntu1), with -0ubuntuX indicating 'Debian doesn't have this yet, but Ubuntu does'. This makes it easier for us to switch to Debian once the package is available there as well.

Makes sense to me. Changed to -0ubuntu1.

Thanks again, let me know if I need to fix anything more.

[Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100)]

Excellent, thank you for the quick turn-around! I'll give it a quick look now and if everything's fine, I'll sponsor+accept.

[Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100)]

Ok, after a glance everything seemed to be in order. Package has been sponsored and accepted into Ubuntu universe - we now need to make sure all the arches build correctly and accept the NEW binaries as they come.

[Łukasz Zemczak (sil2100)]

Okay, the bad news is: it looks like the ogre-next source package FTBFS on ppc64el and s390x. Can you take a look at the build logs and see if this is something that can be fixed with a follow-up upload?

I'd recommend a separate bug for that then.

[Jose Luis Rivero (j-rivero)]

> Okay, the bad news is: it looks like the ogre-next source package FTBFS on ppc64el and s390x. Can you take a look at the build logs and see if this is something that can be fixed with a follow-up upload?

Ouk, trivial to fix if I'm not wrong.

> I'd recommend a separate bug for that then.

Here we go https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/ogre-next/+bug/1961319

Thanks again Łukasz.

[Mathew Hodson (mhodson)]

ogre-next (2.2.5+dfsg3-0ubuntu1) jammy; urgency=medium

  * Initial release (LP: #1960149)

 -- Jose Luis Rivero <email address hidden> Thu, 09 Dec 2021 19:09:45 +0000