LBRY Debian / Apt / Ubuntu Install Cleanup (or switch to snap?)

kauffj commented

2018-04-23 20:49:46 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

There are several issues with the LBRY experience in the Ubuntu Software Center:

An extraneous version appears from the "SnapStore", v0.14
No screenshot appears for the app
The license shows as proprietary, when it is actually MIT

I'm guessing the bottom two are fixed by setting correct metadata... somewhere.

Acceptance Criteria

Definition of Done

Tested against acceptance criteria
Tested against the assumptions of the user story
The project builds without errors
Unit tests are written and passing
Tests on devices/browsers listed in the issue have passed
QA performed & issues resolved
Refactoring completed
Any configuration or build changes documented
Documentation updated
Peer Code Review performed

There are several issues with the LBRY experience in the Ubuntu Software Center: - [ ] An extraneous version appears from the "SnapStore", v0.14 - [ ] No screenshot appears for the app - [ ] The license shows as proprietary, when it is actually MIT I'm guessing the bottom two are fixed by setting correct metadata... somewhere. ### Acceptance Criteria 1. 2. 3. ### Definition of Done - [ ] Tested against acceptance criteria - [ ] Tested against the assumptions of the user story - [ ] The project builds without errors - [ ] Unit tests are written and passing - [ ] Tests on devices/browsers listed in the issue have passed - [ ] QA performed & issues resolved - [ ] Refactoring completed - [ ] Any configuration or build changes documented - [ ] Documentation updated - [ ] Peer Code Review performed

kauffj commented

2018-07-31 00:11:49 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

This is still true. In particular I'd like at least the extremely old, broken version to not show up when I search "LBRY" (it's the first result).

I'm guessing the other 2 are just properly setting some metadata in one of the build artifacts.

This is still true. In particular I'd like at least the extremely old, broken version to not show up when I search "LBRY" (it's the first result). I'm guessing the other 2 are just properly setting some metadata in one of the build artifacts.

kauffj commented

2018-07-31 00:13:33 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Actually, the "correct" entry is also wrong. It's showing 0.21.5, not 0.23.

tzarebczan commented

2019-06-10 15:45:33 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Re license:
https://github.com/electron-userland/electron-builder/issues/3914

Could be an existing bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/435183 / https://github.com/betaflight/betaflight-configurator/issues/989#issuecomment-375954366

https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

Re license: https://github.com/electron-userland/electron-builder/issues/3914 Could be an existing bug: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/435183 / https://github.com/betaflight/betaflight-configurator/issues/989#issuecomment-375954366 https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/

tiger5226 commented

2019-10-12 16:08:04 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The proprietary license issue was brought up yesterday by a friend who was trying out lbry. Probably very low priority but wanted to flag that it was noticed.

kauffj commented

2019-10-13 17:51:22 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

https://github.com/electron-userland/electron-builder/issues/4270

kauffj commented

2019-10-13 17:51:44 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

I've found like a dozen people/projects that have this issue and no one seems to know how to get it to say anything other than proprietary.

tiger5226 commented

2019-10-16 04:04:53 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

it looks like we were building for uappexplorer which is shutdown now. I do not see lbry on the ubuntu snap store. This is something different to build to.

looking here https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop/blob/master/electron-builder.json#L66

We only specify deb for the top level linux key. See docs below, but I think we should add snap as well.
https://www.electron.build/configuration/linux

And the details for snap are

https://www.electron.build/configuration/snap

it looks like we were building for uappexplorer which is shutdown now. I do not see lbry on the ubuntu snap store. This is something different to build to. looking here https://github.com/lbryio/lbry-desktop/blob/master/electron-builder.json#L66 We only specify `deb` for the top level `linux` key. See docs below, but I think we should add `snap` as well. https://www.electron.build/configuration/linux And the details for `snap` are https://www.electron.build/configuration/snap

kauffj commented

2019-10-16 23:42:18 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

@tiger5226 yeah, it may be better to just pull the trigger and switch to snaps.

👍 1 👎 2

kauffj commented

2019-10-16 23:44:37 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

or appimages or flatpak or...

open-source is both fun and terrible 😁

or appimages or flatpak or... open-source is both fun and terrible :grin:

danrobi11 commented

2019-10-18 12:14:16 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Here: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/software-center/+bug/435183

danrobi11 commented

2019-10-18 18:52:03 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Someone at Lubuntu did some digging about the license issue:
"I couldn’t found those packages in ubuntu repositories, so maybe there are some issues with the way the .deb was created. I downloaded FreeTube to look at it ( https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube/releases/download/v0.7.1-beta/FreeTube_0.7.1_amd64.deb ) and couldn’t found a /debian folder in which, among others, the license in a machine readable format (copyright) should be placed. Maybe that’s why the system assume it is propietary. More info of copyright file: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/"

Source: https://discourse.lubuntu.me/t/deb-packages-license-issue/470/4

Someone at Lubuntu did some digging about the license issue: "I couldn’t found those packages in ubuntu repositories, so maybe there are some issues with the way the .deb was created. I downloaded FreeTube to look at it ( https://github.com/FreeTubeApp/FreeTube/releases/download/v0.7.1-beta/FreeTube_0.7.1_amd64.deb ) and couldn’t found a /debian folder in which, among others, the license in a machine readable format (copyright) should be placed. Maybe that’s why the system assume it is propietary. More info of copyright file: https://www.debian.org/doc/packaging-manuals/copyright-format/1.0/" Source: https://discourse.lubuntu.me/t/deb-packages-license-issue/470/4

kauffj commented

2019-10-18 23:54:58 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Great find @danrobi11!

danrobi11 commented

2019-10-20 03:44:05 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Got new comment from Lubuntu:
Source: https://discourse.lubuntu.me/t/deb-packages-license-issue/470/16

I don’t see that any of these packages have an appstream.xml or metainfo.xml as specified by the AppStream specification and their desktop entries are not readily found (another place metadata could come from). That also may be where the problem lies.

Or it could be a combination of these things. Either way, this illustrates a good point: software in the Ubuntu archives is carefully checked to ensure it meets a variety of different specifications to ensure it works properly with the whole ecosystem of applications available in the archives. When you’re using software from outside the archives, you’re bound to run into trouble. This sort of software is entirely unsupported by Ubuntu.

If you want this to work correctly, you will need to talk to the upstream developers and perhaps have them speak with the gnome-software developers to figure out the appropriate solution. Additionally, you should urge them to get their packages included into Debian. Those packages should get automatically synced to Ubuntu.

> Got new comment from Lubuntu: > Source: https://discourse.lubuntu.me/t/deb-packages-license-issue/470/16 > > > I don’t see that any of these packages have an appstream.xml or metainfo.xml as specified by the [AppStream specification](https://www.freedesktop.org/software/appstream/docs/sect-Metadata-Application.html) and their desktop entries are not readily found (another place metadata could come from). That also may be where the problem lies. > > Or it could be a combination of these things. Either way, this illustrates a good point: software in the Ubuntu archives is carefully checked to ensure it meets a variety of different specifications to ensure it works properly with the whole ecosystem of applications available in the archives. When you’re using software from outside the archives, you’re bound to run into trouble. This sort of software is entirely unsupported by Ubuntu. > > If you want this to work correctly, you will need to talk to the upstream developers and perhaps have them speak with the gnome-software developers to figure out the appropriate solution. Additionally, you should urge them to get their packages included into Debian. Those packages should get automatically synced to Ubuntu.

danrobi11 commented

2019-10-20 09:55:55 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Suggested by wxl at Lubuntu, i've opened a deb packages license issue at gnome-software gitlab
https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/833

Suggested by wxl at Lubuntu, i've opened a deb packages license issue at gnome-software gitlab https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/833

danrobi11 commented

2019-10-20 10:51:44 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Andre Klapper at the Gnome-software needs more information. Please have a look: https://gitlab.gnome.org/GNOME/gnome-software/issues/833#note_628721

pktiuk commented

2020-08-19 19:51:12 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

The license shows as proprietary, when it is actually MIT

.deb package for lbry is not very good, it lacks some informations.

To check what is wrong I recommend lintian.

Current output:

lintian ./LBRY_0.47.1.deb 
E: lbry: debian-changelog-file-missing-or-wrong-name
E: lbry: description-synopsis-is-empty
E: lbry: dir-or-file-in-opt opt/LBRY/
E: lbry: dir-or-file-in-opt opt/LBRY/LICENSE.electron.txt
E: lbry: dir-or-file-in-opt opt/LBRY/LICENSES.chromium.html
E: lbry: dir-or-file-in-opt ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program)
E: lbry: embedded-library opt/LBRY/lbry: freetype
E: lbry: embedded-library opt/LBRY/lbry: lcms2
E: lbry: embedded-library opt/LBRY/lbry: libjpeg
E: lbry: embedded-library ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program)
E: lbry: missing-dependency-on-libc needed by opt/LBRY/lbry and 7 others
E: lbry: no-copyright-file
E: lbry: shlib-with-executable-bit opt/LBRY/libEGL.so 0755
E: lbry: shlib-with-executable-bit opt/LBRY/libGLESv2.so 0755
E: lbry: shlib-with-executable-bit opt/LBRY/libVkICD_mock_icd.so 0755
E: lbry: shlib-with-executable-bit ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program)
E: lbry: statically-linked-binary opt/LBRY/resources/static/lbry-first/lbry-first
E: lbry: unstripped-binary-or-object opt/LBRY/libVkICD_mock_icd.so
E: lbry: unstripped-binary-or-object opt/LBRY/resources/static/lbry-first/lbry-first
E: lbry: unstripped-binary-or-object opt/LBRY/swiftshader/libEGL.so
E: lbry: unstripped-binary-or-object ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program)
W: lbry: description-starts-with-leading-spaces
...
(more warnings...)

> The license shows as proprietary, when it is actually MIT `.deb` package for lbry is not very good, it lacks some informations. To check what is wrong I recommend [lintian](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lintian). <br>Current output: ```bash lintian ./LBRY_0.47.1.deb E: lbry: debian-changelog-file-missing-or-wrong-name E: lbry: description-synopsis-is-empty E: lbry: dir-or-file-in-opt opt/LBRY/ E: lbry: dir-or-file-in-opt opt/LBRY/LICENSE.electron.txt E: lbry: dir-or-file-in-opt opt/LBRY/LICENSES.chromium.html E: lbry: dir-or-file-in-opt ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program) E: lbry: embedded-library opt/LBRY/lbry: freetype E: lbry: embedded-library opt/LBRY/lbry: lcms2 E: lbry: embedded-library opt/LBRY/lbry: libjpeg E: lbry: embedded-library ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program) E: lbry: missing-dependency-on-libc needed by opt/LBRY/lbry and 7 others E: lbry: no-copyright-file E: lbry: shlib-with-executable-bit opt/LBRY/libEGL.so 0755 E: lbry: shlib-with-executable-bit opt/LBRY/libGLESv2.so 0755 E: lbry: shlib-with-executable-bit opt/LBRY/libVkICD_mock_icd.so 0755 E: lbry: shlib-with-executable-bit ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program) E: lbry: statically-linked-binary opt/LBRY/resources/static/lbry-first/lbry-first E: lbry: unstripped-binary-or-object opt/LBRY/libVkICD_mock_icd.so E: lbry: unstripped-binary-or-object opt/LBRY/resources/static/lbry-first/lbry-first E: lbry: unstripped-binary-or-object opt/LBRY/swiftshader/libEGL.so E: lbry: unstripped-binary-or-object ... use --no-tag-display-limit to see all (or pipe to a file/program) W: lbry: description-starts-with-leading-spaces ... (more warnings...) ```

Victor239 commented

2021-05-20 17:09:00 +02:00

(Migrated from github.com)

Flatpak is better than Snap because:

Server side code for Snap is closed
Snap doesn't allow users to connect to more than one server. This is similar to Apple's monopoly on the iOS App Store, which means that nobody else can host a server for users to download apps from.

Flatpak is better than Snap because: - Server side code for Snap is closed - Snap doesn't allow users to connect to more than one server. This is similar to Apple's monopoly on the iOS App Store, which means that nobody else can host a server for users to download apps from.

👍 2

LBRY Debian / Apt / Ubuntu Install Cleanup (or switch to snap?) #1376

Acceptance Criteria

Definition of Done