Luca Falavigna <dktrkr...@debian.org> writes: > after some time spent to reflect and discuss, I think we reached a > point of no return regarding waf package in Debian. I try to summarize > what happened in the past months.
Thanks very much for responsibly working to make this package behave well with the Debian system and to work with upstream. It's a pity upstream was uncooperative with these goals. > As a personal note, I discourage using waf as build system of choice: > during these months I realized waf introduces backward incompatible > changes every releases, this can lead to build failures very > frequently. Sticking with older releases is the suggested solution by > upstream, but may expose to bugs fixed in newer releases only. Indeed, this kind of thinking — bundling third-party code with one's application and resisting efforts to de-couple for lower code duplication/divergence and maintenance effort — seems to be disproportionately high with many developers of Python code in particular (certainly not all, and probably not even a majority; but enough to be a problem). I don't know what the origin is, but it's frustrating to see it repeated. It will be a shame to lose ‘waf’, which might over time have become a good option for a flexible, reliable build system. It seems the current developers don't want that though, so I think your choice is correct. -- \ “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we | `\ despise, we don't believe in it at all.” —Noam Chomsky, | _o__) 1992-11-25 | Ben Finney
pgpnx98lT2afF.pgp
Description: PGP signature
