Hi Carsten-- Thanks for this prompt and thoughtful response!
On Fri 2022-08-19 07:30:14 +0200, Carsten Schoenert wrote: > there isn't only the mach Python script, there are a lot of various > peaces that act together (I haven't looked into that rabbit hole yet). > But yes, the script in question is a Python script. yep, i agree that it's more complicated than a single python script. thanks for looking a few layers below the surface already. > Of course this is doable. Reading your initial ITP I think it would be > reasonable to ship this all within a new binary package called > thunderbird-mach-tool or mozilla-mach-tool e.g. This could be even a > usual python3 package in a long term. that sounds not unreasonable to me. I see that https://pypi.org/project/mach/ is also a Mozilla project (it links back to the bitrotted https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Developer_Guide/mach), but it doesn't look like it is the same thing? Or, it has greatly diverged! If it is actually the same project, maybe we can try to convince upstream to reinvigorate their package on pypi directly, then we pull from there? > The hardest part will be to get all the parts together that are needed > to get the tooling working correctly. > For me it would work best if you can start to extract the files and > folders which are needed. right. looking a bit deeper into it, it looks like mach wants to initialize a python virtualenv -- that's probably a non-starter for debian, so it might need some additional pruning/patching :( > Do you might have an (better?) idea how to archive the needs from > Daniel? It's mostly a one way communication for me if I start to ask > Mike. :-( > Is there eventually some more or less ready we could pick up from the > upstream build system? I'd definitely be interested in hearing if you know of any other option too! All the best, --dkg
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
