Neil Williams dixit: >work on except you. You are replaceable and pax is not *your personal >package* - it is in Debian, everyone with upload rights needs to be >able to at least work out if the package is sane.
Somewhat, yes. But I am still the maintainer, and doing things. >It adds to the mess in debian/rules - simplification is the goal of >this bug. I don’t care about *over*simplification, especially at the expense of hidden complexity and massive speed loss. Furthermore, by not using debhelper, I know exactly what’s going on. cdbs and dh7 are even worse because they hide precisely that. >fakeroot stuff". There is no fakeroot problem with cross-building. It's >a fault generated by your non-standard use of pax and the whole B/c/ >misdirection. The only thing you could say here is that the chown call is not necessary at all, but I’ve yet to see it hurting (I did test cross-building). If it’s just redundant, I don’t *need* to remove it. It’s certainly less overhead than installing debhelper. >itself. The current packaging admits as much by using dpkg-deb when >cross-building when what you *mean* is to use dpkg-deb when >*bootstrapping* in order to break this self-imposed circular >dependency.) No, because, for a native build, at that poing, pax is already available. In fact, this is a test for pax, and it has found a bug in fakeroot precisely *because* the pax just built is used to create its own package. Nothing circular in there. >If you are serious about dependency problems, this is what you would >get because you'd be turning Recommends off - e.g. as in a buildd >chroot. (I always turn them off.) >Then simply rebuild debhelper with a local change No, that would break other builds. >why this is necessary. This bug arose precisely because there was a bug >in pax which drew the attention of other DD's at a BSP for Wheezy. What bug? Nobody said something about a bug. >> I agree with this one, but this is not enough for me to change >> that, especially not in deep freeze. > >Then show some engagement with your peers and fix it in experimental. If you show some peer love and get rid of dh7 or cdbs in some other package, I’m willing to make that deal. >> * Why were you investigating the build system of pax anyway? > >It came up on the list of bugs to investigate at the BSP. The build system? I am not aware of a bug against that. >Why is it a problem for you that your peers wanted to look at pax? That’s not the problem. The problem is that I’m being steamrolled over with no notice beforehand, and with no (to me) visible reason. >> I *am* fairly territorial wrt. my packages (those I do not comaintain) > >That is the entire problem and that attitude is not welcome in Debian. Debian is a do-ocracy, and you can’t say I’m doing nothing. Also, it has traditionally, and recently, upheld strong package maintainership, so this is even a customary law. I don’t care whether this attitude is not welcome for *you* but it matches what is practiced in Debian. I’m just stating it explicitly. >As it is, I don't care about pax other than it reflects badly on the >rest of Debian - that's almost justification for an RM. I'm willing to Excuse me? Now you’re getting ridiculous. >The current package is unfit due to it being sufficiently non-standard >that your peers cannot work out if it is working correctly. A better I suggest you go for packages that use, e.g. Manoj’s system and dbs next, then cdbs after that. Please. Otherwise you’re singling out my (working, well-tested, simple) build system, which I cannot help but feel as if it were a personal affront against my person (it probably is not, but the message arrives here like that, and I can’t control my feelings). >Please, read Zack's email again - pax needs to be changed to make it >something which your *peers* can work on and fix. Right now, we cannot. Again, right now, nobody has told me why they should want to. (Note, fixing things in the code, not packaging, is easy. I even use 3.0 (quilt) nowadays.) bye, //mirabilos -- Darwinism never[…]applied to wizardkind. There's a more than fair amount of[…] stupidity in its gene-pool[…]never eradicated[…]magic evens the odds that way. It's[…]harder to die for us than[…]muggles[…]wonder if, as technology[…]better […]same will[…]happen there too. Dursleys' continued existence indicates so. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
