On 04/07/12 at 13:29 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Jul 04, 2012 at 09:20:05AM +0000, Lucas Nussbaum <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > I think that dash is a reasonable example at this stage, given that: > > (1) it is actually useful > > You mean useful as a package or as an example?
as a package > > (2) it introduces an importunity to talk about Debian's choices in terms > > of technical excellence > > I have not heard the spoken text when the slide was presented but to my > perception excellence excellence and simplicity goes hand in hand and the > debian/rules file is not simple. if by simple, you mean "hides lots of things that you want the public to get a basic idea of during the talk", yes it's simple > > (3) it is simple > > By what definition of "simple"? I have observed the faces of the > students freezing when opening the debian/rules file. We have excellent > tools which enable writing "one screen sized" rules files and I would > always recommend to use *recent* tools rather than historic ones. As > far as I can see the capacity of any newbie will be exhauseted after the > explanation of all the details of the given rules file. This is no good > motivation in my opinion. I would rather start with a > > %: > dh $@ > > like rules file and say: If you are lucky that's all what you need to > do - well, in most cases you are not *that* lucky but anyway this is > what would fit *my* definition of "simple". > > > > quilt is introduced later, and quilt-using packages are used later. > > My main point was not quilt but rather a short rules file using dh. > Later we could add quilt magic, that's right. But starting with a > homebrewn patch system for newbies is probably not the best way to > start with (even if it admittedly enables to explain some important > principles). > > I admit it is probably hard to find the optimal way for a presentation > and thus I'll leave the bug closed but wanted to express that I'm not > convinced at all. The goal of the presentation is to provide a decent overview of what is required (in terms of operations) to create a Debian package. The dh_* commands are a reasonable level of abstraction for that, and then I introduce dh as a way to factor all those separate commands. I disagree that, from a pedagogical POV, starting from dh $@ is a reasonable approach. Is there a recording of the Grenoble talk? Maybe what should be added to the package are some "lecturer notes" to give hints at how the presentation should be delivered. Personnally the main point of the dash example is "see, you can build the package, it was not that hard". And then I go into details following the slides. Actually, the presentation is structured into 4 key achiviements: 1. demystify: make people realize that .debs are not magic (up to the ".deb internals" slide) 2. get people to rebuild a identical Debian package (that's until the dash slide) 3. make people package something simple or modify an existing package (up until the grep slide) 4. introduce mode advanced material (-> end) Explaining everything about Debian packages using the dash example is not how it should be done. Lucas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected]
