On Wednesday 14 June 2006 03:58, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> On 13 Jun 2006, George Danchev said:
> > On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:57, Marc Dequènes wrote:
> > --cut--
> >
> >> Until this is solved, i'm still maintaining my original version,
> >> since more people use it than the one in the package, b
On 13 Jun 2006, George Danchev said:
> On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:57, Marc Dequènes wrote:
> --cut--
>> Until this is solved, i'm still maintaining my original version,
>> since more people use it than the one in the package, but this is
>> not an ideal situation.
>
> Ok, time to ask a real quest
On Saturday 10 June 2006 15:57, Marc Dequènes wrote:
--cut--
> Until this is solved, i'm still maintaining my original version, since
> more people use it than the one in the package, but this is not an ideal
> situation.
Ok, time to ask a real question about cdbs ;-) I assume you are pretty much
#include
* Marc Dequènes [Sun, Jun 11 2006, 03:00:12AM]:
> > and replace it with a very small shell script. For cdbs, you delete one
> > line and have to replace it with your reimplementation of a very large
> > makefile...
>
> That's obvious because CDBS does not target at doing little indepen
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Probably because a change in debhelper is done with a change of
> compatibility level. And you still can use the old behaviour by using
> the appropriate level.
I was talking about mistakes, and package care, and package reviewed by
several persons of a t
Mike Hommey <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Probably because a change in debhelper is done with a change of
> compatibility level. And you still can use the old behaviour by using
> the appropriate level.
I was talking about mistakes, and package care, and package reviewed by
several persons of a t
also sprach Jean Parpaillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.12.0931 +0200]:
> Uhhh,
> I did not want to launch such a big discussion :-)
Then you should not have written to debian-devel. :)
> - I first used a simple "rules" script, because I can not imagine
> using a wrapper while not knowing the sy
Re: Steve Langasek 2006-06-10 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Is it no longer a requirement of NM that applicants demonstrate themselves
> capable of putting together a source package without the use of rules
> helpers?
Not in that length. The template question used by most AMs is:
Write a small shell sc
Loïc Minier skrev:
Is Debhelper our C and CDBS our C++?
CDBS is to debhelper as XSLT (or prolog) is to C (or another procedural
language).
- tfheen
Uhhh,
I did not want to launch such a big discussion :-)
Here is my opinion (this is my first packages for Debian, and people on
debian-mentors know it has not been easy to follow the whole policy ;-)
- I first used a simple "rules" script, because I can not imagine using
a wrapper while not know
Am Sonntag, den 11.06.2006, 11:30 +0100 schrieb Mark Brown:
> That's a bit different: updating the debhelper compat level is updated
> by the maintainer explicitly changing the package rather than by
> installing a new version of debhelper.
Well, I certainly agree that it is a bug if CDBS changes
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 09:06:28AM +0200, Thomas Weber wrote:
> Well, how do I know if I have to deviate from the debhelper scripts at
> some point in the future? In fact, if I bump up the compat level, I
> might very well need to change my scripts.
That's a bit different: updating the debhelper
On Sun, Jun 11, 2006 at 03:00:12AM +0200, Marc Dequènes <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> In the past some mistakes were done in debhelper too, even if i don't
> recall a specific case to mention.
Probably because a change in debhelper is done with a change of
compatibility level. And you still can u
Am Samstag, den 10.06.2006, 15:38 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> Oh, I disagree; I think I have a pretty good idea what the benefits are of
> CDBS, I just think that many CDBS proponents underemphasize the *downside*
> of CDBS.
>
> So tell me, how do you know a priori whether the software you're
Coin,
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> and replace it with a very small shell script. For cdbs, you delete one
> line and have to replace it with your reimplementation of a very large
> makefile...
That's obvious because CDBS does not target at doing little independent
tasks (even
Bundling up a few replies here...
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 10:02:26AM +0300, George Danchev wrote:
> I'm also debhelper fan ;-) but what makes you think that if you face a
> problematic debhelper script you are not supposed to reimplement that
> particular part of rules by hand as an interim wor
Joey Hess <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> To be fair, debhelper is not co-maintained either.
I never noticed it wasn't, but i do think it should. Fact is you're
taking far much care when integrating changes, that's a major
difference.
--
Marc Dequènes (Duck)
pgpmw2zfDouEZ.pgp
Description: PGP s
Marc Dequènes wrote:
> in a better state now. But this raise another related subject: such an
> important package should be comaintained. Peter refused any cooperation,
> uploaded new versions while i proposed to review his changes with
> another developper
To be fair, debhelper is not co-maintain
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Hmmm, that sounds weird to my ears as Peter is currently working with
> myself, Steve Langasek and Noèl Köthe on the samba packages...and this
> team work works pretty well.
Sounds very strange to me.
I reviewed his first upload, found a regression
> by NMU). The CDBS Team does no more exist and Peter is the only one
> working on it and refusing any help, that's a very bad situation.
Hmmm, that sounds weird to my ears as Peter is currently working with
myself, Steve Langasek and Noèl Köthe on the samba packages...and this
team work works p
Coin,
Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> I tend to agree.
I tend to agree too, every maintainer should be encouraged to understand
the packaging tools he is using. These tools are made to solve _common_
situations, so you have to understand what automatic mechanisms are
involved, a
also sprach Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.10.1156 +0200]:
> Of course, it was not. I omitted to put smileys because it seems
> that some people around are thinking I'm sometimes too happy or
> saying too much fun things,
and that's negative? We never took you seriously anyway, mus
#include
* Loïc Minier [Sat, Jun 10 2006, 11:08:15AM]:
> Yes, I 100% agree with you. Would I be evaluating an applicant, I
> wouldn't like him to prepare a new source package in CDBS. (But I
> wouldn't request to build a .deb with ar either.)
>
> Is Debhelper our C and CDBS our C++?
No. B
On Sat, Jun 10, 2006 at 02:24:42AM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Oh, really? The last time I tried to add a custom command to the install
> rule (well, >> 1 year ago) it was a real PITA. Docs have not told me how
> it works, docs have not told me in an understandable language how to add
> extensions
Quoting martin f krafft ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> also sprach Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.10.0852 +0200]:
> > But I suspect that implicitely telling Manoj that he thinks
> > top-down because he actually likes cdbs will get you into trouble,
>
> It was not my intention.
Of course,
also sprach Christian Perrier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.10.0852 +0200]:
> But I suspect that implicitely telling Manoj that he thinks
> top-down because he actually likes cdbs will get you into trouble,
It was not my intention.
--
Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006, Steve Langasek wrote:
> When using debhelper, you (typically) have a single debian/rules makefile
> which lists out all the commands that are invoked for building your package;
> each of those commands primarily uses the contents of other files in debian/
> as input. If you h
Hi,
first off, I'm neither a DD nor an NM, but I do some packaging work
(thanks to alioth), As most people here argue against CDBS, I think the
benefits of it are missed (if you didn't guess, I use it and I like it).
Am Freitag, den 09.06.2006, 15:10 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> On Fri, Jun 0
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006, martin f krafft wrote:
> This is my opinion and others will disagree:
> Please don't. CDBS is a major pain to use for those who didn't
> (co-)author it. It's just too much about obfuscation.
Yeah, I and others we disagree! :)
CDBS makes maintenance of some packages damn e
On Saturday 10 June 2006 01:10, Steve Langasek wrote:
--cut--
> In contrast, almost all of cdbs is stashed away in /usr/share/cdbs/; almost
> none of what it does is inspectible by looking at the debian/rules and
> using those lines as hooks into the documentation. There is
> /usr/share/doc/cdbs/c
> Because there is documentation telling what is going behind the scenes?
> Like understandable manpages for every debhelper command.
Sure. I think that we basically here all agree that, whether we
actually like cdbs or not, its documentation has a lot of room for
improvement...
signature.as
Quoting Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]):
> Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > Is it no longer a requirement of NM that applicants demonstrate
> > themselves capable of putting together a source package without the use
> > of rules helpers?
>
> Well, I've never actually done this, a
> cdbs is top-down because it defines the package build as much as
> possible in line with how the cdbs developers think it should be
> done. It expects the developer to tweak the countless,
> undocumented parameters until it's right.
>
> debhelper is bottom-up because it gives you smal
> There are also pretty significant differences in the design goals of
> debhelper and cdbs, differences which I believe have a major impact on the
> ability of maintainers to understand their own packages and on the
> respective helper-induced build failure rates of the two. I think these are
>
#include
* Manoj Srivastava [Fri, Jun 09 2006, 02:02:48PM]:
> On 9 Jun 2006, Christoph Berg said:
> > This is also my impression. CDBS might be nice to automate the task
> > "make a .deb out of this Gnome source", but imho it completely fails
> > when you want to deviate from the "standard" in an
Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Is it no longer a requirement of NM that applicants demonstrate
> themselves capable of putting together a source package without the use
> of rules helpers?
Well, I've never actually done this, and I got through NM. (I've always
used debhelper, altho
also sprach Steve Langasek <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.10.0010 +0200]:
> Let's compare debhelper to cdbs.
... this makes me think:
cdbs is top-down because it defines the package build as much as
possible in line with how the cdbs developers think it should be
done. It expects the develope
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:02:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >> This is my opinion and others will disagree:
> >> Please don't. CDBS is a major pain to use for those who didn't
> >> (co-)author it. It's just too much about obfuscation.
> > This is also my impression. CDBS might be nice to
On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:02:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I am surprised to hear you say so, since CDBS is one of the
> most configurable build systems out there. You can add commands to
> any phase of the build, by just adding targets/dependencies/variables.
If you can figure
On 9 Jun 2006, Christoph Berg said:
> Re: martin f krafft 2006-06-09
> <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>> also sprach Jean Parpaillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.09.1118
>> +0200]:
>>> I want to migrate my package (wormux) to CDBS.
>>
>> Why?
>
> I was just about to ask the same. Which packaging scheme do yo
* Christoph Berg [Fri, 09 Jun 2006 19:30:27 +0200]:
> Again, I'm fine if you use CDBS for your package, but please never
> recommend it to any new maintainer.
Full ack, seconded.
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer
Re: martin f krafft 2006-06-09 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> also sprach Jean Parpaillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.09.1118 +0200]:
> > I want to migrate my package (wormux) to CDBS.
>
> Why?
I was just about to ask the same. Which packaging scheme do you use
now?
> This is my opinion and others will
also sprach Adeodato Simó <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.09.1747 +0200]:
> > This is old. Why not switch to debhelper compatibility level 5,
> > which includes switching to a new format for *.install files?
>
> What new format?
Sorry, there's no old and new. There's one and two column, the first
of
also sprach Andreas Metzler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.09.1724 +0200]:
> For my own packages I usually do not use debhelper features
> unavailable in stable as I like to be able to make backports
> easily.
Then use compatibility level 4. Debhelper 5 *is* on backports.org
though.
--
Please do n
* martin f krafft [Fri, 09 Jun 2006 15:19:03 +0200]:
> This is old. Why not switch to debhelper compatibility level 5,
> which includes switching to a new format for *.install files?
What new format?
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer
martin f krafft debian.org> writes:
[...]
> also sprach Andreas Metzler downhill.at.eu.org>
[2006.06.09.1337 +0200]:
>> I am using
>> DEB_DH_INSTALL_SOURCEDIR = debian/tmp
>> for that purpose.
> This is old. Why not switch to debhelper compatibility level 5,
> which includes switching to a new
* Jean Parpaillon [Fri, 09 Jun 2006 11:18:07 +0200]:
> Why do the default behaviour of dh_install is not to get files in
> 'debian/tmp' ?
That was the default behavior for the old dh_movefiles, which got
deprecated in debhelper 4 in favour of dh_install (see the changelog for
4.0.0 for details).
also sprach Jean Parpaillon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> [2006.06.09.1118 +0200]:
> I want to migrate my package (wormux) to CDBS.
Why?
This is my opinion and others will disagree:
Please don't. CDBS is a major pain to use for those who didn't
(co-)author it. It's just too much about obfuscation.
> In th
Le 09.06.2006 13:37, Andreas Metzler a écrit :
> Jean Parpaillon altern.org> writes:
>
>> I want to migrate my package (wormux) to CDBS.
>> In the .install files, path are not prefixed by "debian/tmp" so
>> the building fail.
>> It seems that I can correct this in 2 ways:
>> - either I prefix t
Jean Parpaillon altern.org> writes:
> I want to migrate my package (wormux) to CDBS.
> In the .install files, path are not prefixed by "debian/tmp" so
> the building fail.
> It seems that I can correct this in 2 ways:
> - either I prefix the paths with debian/tmp
> - or I can set a special variabl
This one time, at band camp, Jean Parpaillon said:
> Hi,
> I want to migrate my package (wormux) to CDBS.
> In the .install files, path are not prefixed by "debian/tmp" so
> the building fail.
> It seems that I can correct this in 2 ways:
> - either I prefix the paths with debian/tmp
> - or I can s
Hi,
I want to migrate my package (wormux) to CDBS.
In the .install files, path are not prefixed by "debian/tmp" so
the building fail.
It seems that I can correct this in 2 ways:
- either I prefix the paths with debian/tmp
- or I can set a special variable (DEB_DESTDIR, am I right ?) to debian/tmp
52 matches
Mail list logo
