Piotr Ożarowski <pi...@debian.org> wrote: > [Walter Landry, 2016-11-08] >> Doing a quick search >> >> curl -s >> https://codesearch.debian.net/results/22044ee2fe5c4350/packages.json | jq -r >> '.Packages[]' | wc -l > > this result is no longer available
Oh bother. I did a slightly more sophisticated search and got 36 results ardour, aster, aubio, audacity, avw.lv2, diodon, flowcanvas, fomp, fonts-sil-padauk, ganv, gmidimonitor, jackd2, jalv, kupfer, libcsp, lilv, lv2, lv2core, lvtk, lysdr, mda-lv2, mpv, ns3, patchage, pd-aubio, pugl, py3cairo, raul, serd, sord, sprai, sratom, suil, sushi, xmds2, xmms2 I searched for 'waflib/Tools' on codesearch.debian.org. >> shows 39 packages might also benefit from a central installation of >> waf. > > IMHO there are 39 packages out there that should be patched to use > something else (or at least strongly suggest upstream to use something > else and watch waf changes very carefully in each new upstream release) > >> Waf has had a somewhat contentious history in Debian. It was packaged >> and then removed upon request by upstream. > > it's your time, but please feel warned > >> I have had a conversation with upstream (Thomas Nagy). Nagy still >> opposes a generic 'waf' package, but is fine with giving it a specific >> version number (e.g. waf-1.9.5). > > what's the benefit of having ~39 waf-version packages (with hostile > upstream) Part of the reason for this discussion is so that upstream will not be so hostile. Nagy was also fine if we used a different name. Then it would be something like firefox and iceweasel. That is not ideal, but it is not without precedent. > over 39 packages that bundle waf? There would be one waf package. Packagers would have the option of using the waf package. They might prefer that over the UnpackWaf option. I certainly would. The differences between the waf versions are not so large, especially for minor versions. Cheers, Walter Landry
