FAQ Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read
» Video Reviews

» Linux Archive

Linux-archive is a website aiming to archive linux email lists and to make them easily accessible for linux users/developers.


» Sponsor

» Partners

» Sponsor

Go Back   Linux Archive > Debian > Debian Development

 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
 
Old 06-05-2011, 01:46 PM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default intermediate result of packaging-dev meta package discussion

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,
debhelper,
devscripts,
dput | dupload,
lintian,
pbuilder | cowbuilder | sbuild,
quilt,
${miscepends}
Recommends: apt-file,
autoconf,
automake,
autotools-dev,
bzr-builddeb,
cdbs,
cmake,
debian-policy,
developers-reference,
git-buildpackage,
gnupg,
libtool,
piuparts,
svn-buildpackage,
${vendor-specific:Recommends}
Suggests: dh-make

${vendor-specific:Recommends} will be evaluated to "ubuntu-dev-tools" on
Ubuntu.

Please let me know if there is something missing, should be demoted, or
removed.

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 packagers.
No other package should depend or build-depend on packaging-dev.

[1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/packaging-dev.git

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
 
Old 06-05-2011, 02:11 PM
Neil Williams
 
Default intermediate result of packaging-dev meta package discussion

On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:46:44 +0200
Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> 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 packagers.
> No other package should depend or build-depend on packaging-dev.

I'd suggest that a wishlist bug is filed against lintian to set an
error if any package (source or binary) lists a dependency (or even
Recommends) on the packaging-dev binary. Time should be allowed for
lintian to implement this check before this package is uploaded,
unless the lintian maintainers disagree.

It would also be sensible to have a summary of the quoted paragraph in
the package description.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 06-05-2011, 02:29 PM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default intermediate result of packaging-dev meta package discussion

Am Sonntag, den 05.06.2011, 15:11 +0100 schrieb Neil Williams:
> On Sun, 05 Jun 2011 15:46:44 +0200
> Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> 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 packagers.
> > No other package should depend or build-depend on packaging-dev.
>
> I'd suggest that a wishlist bug is filed against lintian to set an
> error if any package (source or binary) lists a dependency (or even
> Recommends) on the packaging-dev binary. Time should be allowed for
> lintian to implement this check before this package is uploaded,
> unless the lintian maintainers disagree.

Done (bug #629308).

> It would also be sensible to have a summary of the quoted paragraph in
> the package description.

Done, but a proper long description is still missing. Anyone with good
writing skills volunteering?

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
 
Old 06-07-2011, 09:34 AM
Vincent Danjean
 
Default intermediate result of packaging-dev meta package discussion

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 the
> discussion.
>
> The list looks currently like this:
>
> Depends: [...]
> pbuilder | cowbuilder | sbuild,

My laptop, where I do all my packaging work but final build, has
none of them installed. I've a separate machine with several chroots
(lenny, squeeze, unstable and several for ubuntu) managed with sbuild that
I use when I want to really build the package I will upload. Due to disk
space, I cannot instal them (chroots) on my laptop.
I other people work like me, these tools can be moved to Recommends
instead of Depends.

Regards,
Vincent

> quilt,
> ${miscepends}
> Recommends: apt-file,
> autoconf,
> automake,
> autotools-dev,
> bzr-builddeb,
> cdbs,
> cmake,
> debian-policy,
> developers-reference,
> git-buildpackage,
> gnupg,
> libtool,
> piuparts,
> svn-buildpackage,
> ${vendor-specific:Recommends}
> Suggests: dh-make
>
> ${vendor-specific:Recommends} will be evaluated to "ubuntu-dev-tools" on
> Ubuntu.
>
> Please let me know if there is something missing, should be demoted, or
> removed.
>
> 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 packagers.
> No other package should depend or build-depend on packaging-dev.
>
> [1] http://anonscm.debian.org/gitweb/?p=collab-maint/packaging-dev.git
>


--
Vincent Danjean GPG key ID 0x9D025E87 vdanjean@debian.org
GPG key fingerprint: FC95 08A6 854D DB48 4B9A 8A94 0BF7 7867 9D02 5E87
Unofficial packages: http://moais.imag.fr/membres/vincent.danjean/deb.html
APT repo: deb http://people.debian.org/~vdanjean/debian unstable main


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-REQUEST@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Archive: 4DEDF0A6.9040004@free.fr">http://lists.debian.org/4DEDF0A6.9040004@free.fr
 
Old 06-07-2011, 09:46 AM
Neil Williams
 
Default intermediate result of packaging-dev meta package discussion

On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:34:30 +0200
Vincent Danjean <vdanjean.ml@free.fr> 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 suggestions made in the
> > discussion.
> >
> > The list looks currently like this:
> >
> > Depends: [...]
> > pbuilder | cowbuilder | sbuild,
>
> My laptop, where I do all my packaging work but final build, has
> none of them installed. I've a separate machine with several chroots
> (lenny, squeeze, unstable and several for ubuntu) managed with sbuild that
> I use when I want to really build the package I will upload. Due to disk
> space, I cannot instal them (chroots) on my laptop.
> I other people work like me, these tools can be moved to Recommends

I disagree. pbuilder or the alternatives are fundamental to best
practice Debian packaging. The needs of Debian are wider than a single
user having a problem with a single machine.

This package is trying to express best practice for packaging, to get a
baseline. You admit that you have a way of building in a chroot and it
isn't required that everyone uploading to Debian has this package
installed, it is simply a way of making it simple for most people to
have a standard set of build tools.

Most people would have space for a pbuilder chroot (it's only a few
hundred megabytes even unpacked, it's the apt cache which takes up the
space and that can be cleared with a configuration change) and everyone
using packaging-dev should be expected (required) to use a chroot to
build packages prior to upload.

Recommending chroot build tools is not strong enough.

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
 
Old 06-07-2011, 04:42 PM
Benjamin Drung
 
Default intermediate result of packaging-dev meta package discussion

Am Dienstag, den 07.06.2011, 10:46 +0100 schrieb Neil Williams:
> On Tue, 07 Jun 2011 11:34:30 +0200
> Vincent Danjean <vdanjean.ml@free.fr> 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 suggestions made in the
> > > discussion.
> > >
> > > The list looks currently like this:
> > >
> > > Depends: [...]
> > > pbuilder | cowbuilder | sbuild,
> >
> > My laptop, where I do all my packaging work but final build, has
> > none of them installed. I've a separate machine with several chroots
> > (lenny, squeeze, unstable and several for ubuntu) managed with sbuild that
> > I use when I want to really build the package I will upload. Due to disk
> > space, I cannot instal them (chroots) on my laptop.
> > I other people work like me, these tools can be moved to Recommends
>
> I disagree. pbuilder or the alternatives are fundamental to best
> practice Debian packaging. The needs of Debian are wider than a single
> user having a problem with a single machine.
>
> This package is trying to express best practice for packaging, to get a
> baseline. You admit that you have a way of building in a chroot and it
> isn't required that everyone uploading to Debian has this package
> installed, it is simply a way of making it simple for most people to
> have a standard set of build tools.
>
> Most people would have space for a pbuilder chroot (it's only a few
> hundred megabytes even unpacked, it's the apt cache which takes up the
> space and that can be cleared with a configuration change) and everyone
> using packaging-dev should be expected (required) to use a chroot to
> build packages prior to upload.
>
> Recommending chroot build tools is not strong enough.

Beginners are the target, not experienced packagers. That's why Neil's
reasons seems to be stronger for me than Vincent's. Therefore I will
leave the chroot dependency as dependency unless more people are in
favor of moving them to Recommends.

--
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer
 

Thread Tools




All times are GMT. The time now is 01:46 PM.

VBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO ©2007, Crawlability, Inc.
Copyright 2007 - 2008, www.linux-archive.org