On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 07:27:33PM +0800, Paul Wise wrote:
> On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> > Me, not anymore since it switched to debhelper7 'dh' mode. Before that,
> > it contained a number of useful debian/rules templates for "old"style
> > debhelper-only usage.
>
> d
Am Dienstag, den 07.06.2011, 10:46 +0100 schrieb Neil Williams:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:34:30 +0200
> Vincent Danjean wrote:
>
> > > A few days ago, we had a discussion about a packaging-dev meta package.
> > > The responses were between neutral and positive. Therefor
On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:34:30 +0200
Vincent Danjean wrote:
> > A few days ago, we had a discussion about a packaging-dev meta package.
> > The responses were between neutral and positive. Therefore I created a
> > initial draft [1] and tried to incorporate all sugge
Hi,
On 05/06/2011 15:46, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few days ago, we had a discussion about a packaging-dev meta package.
> The responses were between neutral and positive. Therefore I created a
> initial draft [1] and tried to incorporate all suggestions made in t
Am Sonntag, den 05.06.2011, 15:11 +0100 schrieb Neil Williams:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:46:44 +0200
> Benjamin Drung wrote:
>
> > A few days ago, we had a discussion about a packaging-dev meta package.
>
> > This package is just for packaging, not for developing. S
On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:46:44 +0200
Benjamin Drung wrote:
> A few days ago, we had a discussion about a packaging-dev meta package.
> This package is just for packaging, not for developing. So gdb, pylint
> and co. won't go into it. This package should be installed by package
Hi,
A few days ago, we had a discussion about a packaging-dev meta package.
The responses were between neutral and positive. Therefore I created a
initial draft [1] and tried to incorporate all suggestions made in the
discussion.
The list looks currently like this:
Depends: build-essential
On Mon, 30 May 2011, Osamu Aoki wrote:
> I looked into Debian policy and developers-reference just to be sure.
> Then, I realized that it may be a good idea to make a longer list of
> packages for packaging as long as it is properly maintained together with
> the list in the developers-reference AP
Hi,
I understand intent is a good one but the proposed list seems not so
well thought though. Unless inclusion criteria is clearly defined, it
becomes just another random bloated list of packages.
My first reaction was that, if we are to have such package, we just need
to depends on build-essent
Michael Banck writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:20:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
>> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> > > Recommends or Suggests:
>> > > cdbs
>> > > cmake
>>
>> > My reasoning o
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:20:48PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > > Recommends or Suggests:
> > > cdbs
> > > cmake
>
> > My reasoning on these two was that some people
On Sat, May 28, 2011 at 7:18 PM, Wouter Verhelst wrote:
> Me, not anymore since it switched to debhelper7 'dh' mode. Before that,
> it contained a number of useful debian/rules templates for "old"style
> debhelper-only usage.
dh-make still contains the long-style debhelper rules templates, as
wel
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 11:44:33PM +0200, Jakub Wilk wrote:
> >dh-make
>
> Seriously? Are you, grown-up developers, using it? oO
Me, not anymore since it switched to debhelper7 'dh' mode. Before that,
it contained a number of useful debian/rules templates for "old"style
debhelper-only usage.
--
Hi,
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 07:10:24PM +0900, Charles Plessy wrote:
> > A few days ago, we had a discussion in Ubuntu about a packaging-dev meta
> > package. The problem is that users have to install a bunch of packages
> > if they want to dive into packaging. Even some pac
Le Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:05:42PM +0200, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
>
> A few days ago, we had a discussion in Ubuntu about a packaging-dev meta
> package. The problem is that users have to install a bunch of packages
> if they want to dive into packaging. Even some packagers get an
On 11-05-26 at 04:46pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:45:41AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > On 11-05-26 at 02:20pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung
> > >
On Thu, 26 May 2011 14:30:23 -0700
Russ Allbery wrote:
> Oh, yes, there was also a simple-patchsys system inside CDBS. I'm not
> sure if that's still in use with the new source package format.
CDBS warns if you use simple-patchsys with 3.0. I still use CDBS with
1.0 source format but those pack
On Fri, 27 May 2011 10:30:35 +0800
Paul Wise wrote:
> On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>
> > Do you like the idea or not?
>
> Seems reasonable.
Not to me. dpkg-dev is usually all that's needed in my experience, when
setting up a new build environment. lintian and pbuilde
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 4:05 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Do you like the idea or not?
Seems reasonable.
> Do you have a better name for the meta package?
How about build-something (keeping with the build-essential naming)?
build-depends-common
build-recommends
build-suggests
> Should somethi
The Fungi writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:05:42PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> [...]
> > Should something added to or removed from the dependency list?
>
> Not so much a vote for or against the main idea of the meta package
> itself, but a glaring omission in my mind is piuparts, which is
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:05:42PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
[...]
> Should something added to or removed from the dependency list?
Not so much a vote for or against the main idea of the meta package
itself, but a glaring omission in my mind is piuparts, which is
great for package QA.
--
{ IRL
On Thu, 26 May 2011 23:16:08 +0200, Stefano Zacchiroli wrote:
> > > The problem might be that the set of packages is not
> > > trivial/uncontroversial; I'm not sure I need cdbs (or cmake), I've
> > > never heard about bzr-builddeb, I miss cowbuilder (and also
> > > svn-buildpackage and git-buildpa
On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:45:41AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-05-26 at 02:20pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung
> > > wrote:
> > > > Recommends or Suggests:
> > > > cdbs
>
On 11-05-26 at 02:20pm, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung
> > wrote:
> > > Recommends or Suggests:
> > > cdbs
> > > cmake
>
> > My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren
On 11-05-26 at 05:28pm, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Mackenzie Morgan writes:
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung
> >> wrote:
> >
> >>> Recommends or Suggests:
> >>> cdbs
> >>> cmake
> >
> >> My reasoning on these two was th
On 2011-05-26, Jakub Wilk wrote:
>>autoconf
> + automake (sadly)
> + libtool (even more sadly)
should be grouped with cmake (probably all at suggest)
>>bzr-builddeb (maybe Depends on Ubuntu)
>>svn-buildpackage
>>git-buildpackage
suggest.
>>dh-make
>
> Seriously? Are you, grown-up developers, u
Greetings,
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 02:14:28PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>
> Mackenzie Morgan writes:
> > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>
> >> Recommends or Suggests:
> >> cdbs
> >> cmake
>
...
> > so coming across packages still using it will be common for a while.
>
Not that I'd consider this package particularly useful, but...
* Benjamin Drung , 2011-05-26, 22:49:
Here's the starting point for discussion:
Depends:
build-essential
debhelper
devscripts
gnupg
lintian
dput | dupload
quilt
Agreed.
pbuilder | cowbuilder
Apart from missing initial "sbuild
Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 17:28 -0400 schrieb Mackenzie Morgan:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > Mackenzie Morgan writes:
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> >
> >>> Recommends or Suggests:
> >>> cdbs
> >>> cmake
> >
> >> My reasoning on t
Mackenzie Morgan writes:
> Sorry, yes.
> The push toward Source Format 3 with Quilt and DH7 happened around the
> same time that I started doing packaging with any frequency so I'm
> somewhat muddled on the "old way." Do I recall correctly that there was
> some sort of patch management included
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Mackenzie Morgan writes:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>
>>> Recommends or Suggests:
>>> cdbs
>>> cmake
>
>> My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren't
>> interested in switching from cdbs to q
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Recommends or Suggests:
> > cdbs
> > cmake
> My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren't
> interested in switching from cdbs to quilt, so coming across
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:49:46PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > I tentatively think the idea is good; I don't really care about the
> > name :)
> > The problem might be that the set of packages is not
> > trivial/uncontroversial; I'm not sure I need cdbs (or cmake), I've
> > never heard about
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 10:49:46PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 22:40 +0200 schrieb gregor herrmann:
> > I tentatively think the idea is good; I don't really care about the
> > name :)
ACK (on both).
> > The problem might be that the set of packages is not
> > tri
Mackenzie Morgan writes:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> Recommends or Suggests:
>> cdbs
>> cmake
> My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren't
> interested in switching from cdbs to quilt,
You mean from cdbs to using debhelper directly? cdbs and
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio writes:
> This could be useful. A couple of suggestions:
> Keep vcs specific tools (git-buildpackage, bzr-builddeb,
> svn-buildpackage) in the Recommends field so they are not hard
> dependencies.
A fancier thing to do would be to build separate packaging-dev-
packages f
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Recommends or Suggests:
> cdbs
> cmake
My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren't
interested in switching from cdbs to quilt, so coming across packages
still using it will be common for a while. CMake is a corollary to
Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 16:46 -0400 schrieb Mackenzie Morgan:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
> wrote:
> > Keep vcs specific tools (git-buildpackage, bzr-builddeb,
> > svn-buildpackage) in the Recommends field so they are not hard
> > dependencies.
>
> The curren
Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 22:40 +0200 schrieb gregor herrmann:
> On Thu, 26 May 2011 22:05:42 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>
> > As a starting point packaging-dev would depend on
> >
> > build-essential
> > quilt
> > debhelper
> > cmake
> > autoconf
> > cdbs
> > bzr-builddeb
> > apt-file
> >
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
wrote:
> Keep vcs specific tools (git-buildpackage, bzr-builddeb,
> svn-buildpackage) in the Recommends field so they are not hard
> dependencies.
The current version of the control field I've got sitting here has
build-essential in Depends
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> As a starting point packaging-dev would depend on
>
> build-essential
> quilt
> debhelper
> cmake
> autoconf
> cdbs
> bzr-builddeb
> apt-file
> ubuntu-dev-tools (only on Ubuntu systems)
>
> Do you like the idea or not? Do you have a better n
On Thu, 26 May 2011 22:05:42 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> As a starting point packaging-dev would depend on
>
> build-essential
> quilt
> debhelper
> cmake
> autoconf
> cdbs
> bzr-builddeb
> apt-file
> ubuntu-dev-tools (only on Ubuntu systems)
>
> Do you like the idea or not? Do you have a bet
,
> >> >
> >> > A few days ago, we had a discussion in Ubuntu about a packaging-dev meta
> >> > package. The problem is that users have to install a bunch of packages
> >> > if they want to dive into packaging. Even some packagers get a
On Thu, 26 May 2011 22:29:11 +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Isn't apt-get build-dep enough? Users can always use equivs for
> > something more specific.
> apt-get build-dep gets the build dependency for a specific package, but
> it wont give you devscripts for example.
Maybe the idea was build-
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 17:25 -0300 schrieb Fernando Lemos:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > A few days ago, we had a discussion in Ubuntu about a
Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 17:25 -0300 schrieb Fernando Lemos:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > A few days ago, we had a discussion in Ubuntu about a packaging-dev meta
> > package. The problem is that users have to install
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> Hi,
>
> A few days ago, we had a discussion in Ubuntu about a packaging-dev meta
> package. The problem is that users have to install a bunch of packages
> if they want to dive into packaging. Even some packagers get anno
Hi,
A few days ago, we had a discussion in Ubuntu about a packaging-dev meta
package. The problem is that users have to install a bunch of packages
if they want to dive into packaging. Even some packagers get annoyed
when they need to turn a newly installed system into a packaging
environment
48 matches
Mail list logo
