On mer., 2012-01-04 at 09:07 +0000, Enrico Tröger wrote: > On Tue, 03 Jan 2012 22:40:28 +0100, Yves-Alexis wrote: > > Hi, > > /me is one of the upstream developers of Geany and Gigolo also using > Waf. > > > >> A quick tutorial on how to unpack waf to fulfil our requirements can > >> be found here: http://wiki.debian.org/UnpackWaf > >> > >> Best regards, > >> Alexander > >> for the FTP Team > >> > >> 1: Yes, that phrase originates from the GPL, nevertheless Debian > >> uses it as definiton of "source". > >> > >That still looks to me like a waste of time. waf is a pain to work > >with, and the bzip2 part is not really the worse part (technically > >speaking). > > Yves-Alexis, again the pointless discussion about Waf?
Well, I wasn't the one opening it, I'm tired too :) > Me and some other developers consider Waf as a way saner build system > than autotools. Other people do not. Agreed. > > Anyway, I don't feel like discussing this again and again. Agreed :/ > > > >Diverting from upstream (waf as well as the package using it) already > >proved painful, so I think the easiest solution would be to just stop > >shipping those packages, sadly > > That'd be really, really sadly. Agreed, again. > > Did anyone already brought this issue to Waf upstream to see whether > they would like to help on this issue, e.g. by adding a command line > switch to unpack and repack the waf binary? Well, last time something was ported to waf upstream, it wasn't exactly nicely welcomed (see http://article.gmane.org/gmane.linux.debian.devel.general/149572) And anyway, the unpack part is done automagically at build time already, which is not satisfying for ftp-masters apparently: aiui they want the unpack to be done at packaging time, and so to have a repack done at every release (Alexander, feel free to correct me if I'm wrong, I might have misinterpreted the wiki page). Regards, -- Yves-Alexis
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
