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. The solution would be a meta package that depends on the
commonly used packages for packaging.
Do you like the idea or not? Do you have a better name for the meta
package? Should something added to or removed from the dependency list?
--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
05-26-2011, 08:25 PM
Fernando Lemos
packaging-dev meta package
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> 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 annoyed
> when they need to turn a newly installed system into a packaging
> environment. The solution would be a meta package that depends on the
> commonly used packages for packaging.
Isn't apt-get build-dep enough? Users can always use equivs for
something more specific.
Regards,
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTi=k=2t56U2NJso39K8VwASoNF3pUA@mail.gmail.com ">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTi=k=2t56U2NJso39K8VwASoNF3pUA@mail.gmail.com
05-26-2011, 08:29 PM
Benjamin Drung
packaging-dev meta package
Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 17:25 -0300 schrieb Fernando Lemos:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> 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 annoyed
> > when they need to turn a newly installed system into a packaging
> > environment. The solution would be a meta package that depends on the
> > commonly used packages for packaging.
>
> 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.
--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
05-26-2011, 08:33 PM
Mackenzie Morgan
packaging-dev meta package
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> wrote:
> Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 17:25 -0300 schrieb Fernando Lemos:
>> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> 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 annoyed
>> > when they need to turn a newly installed system into a packaging
>> > environment. The solution would be a meta package that depends on the
>> > commonly used packages for packaging.
>>
>> 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.
I didn't realise you were going to send a mail to debian-devel too
(thought it'd just be ubuntu-devel), so I guess that'd mean make
devscripts a direct Rec if it ends up in Debian, because at the moment
it was being accounted for as a dependency of u-d-t
--
Mackenzie Morgan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTikq-HZj0-1FhDX6oCVre=Z0snAk_Q@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTikq-HZj0-1FhDX6oCVre=Z0snAk_Q@mail.gmail.com
05-26-2011, 08:35 PM
gregor herrmann
packaging-dev meta package
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-essential, but it's still not enough ...
Cheers,
gregor
--
.'`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - PGP/GPG key ID: 0x8649AA06
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Cat Stevens: The Foreigner Suite
05-26-2011, 08:37 PM
Benjamin Drung
packaging-dev meta package
Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 16:33 -0400 schrieb Mackenzie Morgan:
> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:29 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> wrote:
> > Am Donnerstag, den 26.05.2011, 17:25 -0300 schrieb Fernando Lemos:
> >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:05 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> 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 annoyed
> >> > when they need to turn a newly installed system into a packaging
> >> > environment. The solution would be a meta package that depends on the
> >> > commonly used packages for packaging.
> >>
> >> 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.
>
> I didn't realise you were going to send a mail to debian-devel too
> (thought it'd just be ubuntu-devel), so I guess that'd mean make
> devscripts a direct Rec if it ends up in Debian, because at the moment
> it was being accounted for as a dependency of u-d-t
I thought that we should get the meta package into Debian if the DDs
like the idea of it and otherwise get it only into Debian.
Right, devscripts should be a direct dependency.
--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
05-26-2011, 08:40 PM
gregor herrmann
packaging-dev meta package
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 better name for the meta
> package? Should something added to or removed from the dependency list?
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 bzr-builddeb, I miss cowbuilder (and also
svn-buildpackage and git-buildpackage, and maybe dh-make) ... So yes,
the idea is interesting, but the selection of packages might need
some consideration
Cheers,
gregor
--
.'`. Homepage: http://info.comodo.priv.at/ - PGP/GPG key ID: 0x8649AA06
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT & SPI, fellow of Free Software Foundation Europe
`- NP: Cat Stevens: The Foreigner Suite
05-26-2011, 08:44 PM
Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
packaging-dev meta package
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:05 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> 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 name for the meta
> package? Should something added to or removed from the dependency list?
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.
I suppose you don't you don't list devscripts, gnupg, lintian, dput |
dupload, and dh-make (there are probably some others) as they are
pulled in by other packages. I would explicitly depend on them
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTinKQsSjUt8bVfjyR-gK5DdvcLgiKA@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTinKQsSjUt8bVfjyR-gK5DdvcLgiKA@mail.gmail.com
05-26-2011, 08:46 PM
Mackenzie Morgan
packaging-dev meta package
On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:44 PM, Andrew Starr-Bochicchio
<a.starr.b@gmail.com> 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 and the rest in Recommends so people can
slim down at-will.
> I suppose you don't you don't list devscripts, gnupg, lintian, dput |
> dupload, and dh-make (there are probably some others) as they are
> pulled in by other packages. I would explicitly depend on them
>
> Recommends on pbuilder | cowbuilder?.
Can do
--
Mackenzie Morgan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: BANLkTinar-Pc4NOPtU4B40K2qo9xkXm0cg@mail.gmail.com">http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTinar-Pc4NOPtU4B40K2qo9xkXm0cg@mail.gmail.com
05-26-2011, 08:49 PM
Benjamin Drung
packaging-dev meta package
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
> > ubuntu-dev-tools (only on Ubuntu systems)
> >
> > Do you like the idea or not? Do you have a better name for the meta
> > package? Should something added to or removed from the dependency list?
>
> 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 bzr-builddeb, I miss cowbuilder (and also
> svn-buildpackage and git-buildpackage, and maybe dh-make) ... So yes,
> the idea is interesting, but the selection of packages might need
> some consideration
Then let's put the uncontroversial into Depends, the common (this needs
discussion) into Recommends and the others into Suggests.
packaging-dev meta package
