On Tue, Aug 22, 2006 at 12:50:59PM +0300, Jani Monoses wrote: > >> We now patch cdbs, but after huggie said he'd prefer to not rely on > >> the cdbs maintainer for this I also think it's better to have the cdbs > >> class provided by the pkg-xfce team as well. For an example of how > >> it's done outside cdbs check out ruby-pkg-tools. The ruby debian team > >> has it's own cdbs stuff and it is maintained by them. > > None of these are particularly good solutions for us though. We'd need > > to have a new build-depend which Ubuntu packages wouldn't incorporate > > which is another difference and then we'd have to change that package > > for any minor changes to our build system. > I don't understand which b-d you'd need that ubuntu would not, and what > changes in the build system would trigger changes in that package?
If we use cdbs we need to ship your xfce.mk file or similar somewhere. I suspect we wouldn't persuade the cdbs maintainer to do this or if we do then we would need to rely on them to update it. If we have a glaring packaging error across a large number of packages we'd want to update the xfce.mk file rather than hacking it into every debian/rules (or we lose the only advantage cdbs has) and to do that we'd have to wait for a new release of cdbs to build-depend on. The other alternative is to ship xfce.mk in the CDBS directories (or somwhere else sane I guess) maybe in our xfce4-dev-tools package and build-dep on that everywhere. But again this means if we want to make a change to our packaging we'd have to updload a new version of this package. > > Sure but in that case why did you switch the Ubuntu packaging to > > something entirely different moving away from our debhelped based > > packaging? > The reasons I have already explained in past mails. That it's simpler is clear but it is a bit less flexible and certainly so if you use your own CDBS file as opposed to using the generic ones that you have modified. > > It would have been much easier to merge changes - as it is now I can't > > think that we will ever merge changes and patches will be applied and > > bugs fixed on both sides independently. This seems very stupid. > It is stupid, hence my proposal to converge. But that does not mean > we'll just work on the existing debian packages because you don't feel > like changing the status quo. The cdbs system we use is better in many > ways for our purposes and we'll stick with it for the foreseeable future > regardless of what debian does. But your proposal to converge is basically "Use our way or not". Changing over the packaging would be a fair amount of work for us, would introduce bugs no doubt (we're not perfect) and I can't see any huge benefits. I'm just not convinced it's the way forwards or that the advantages of cdbs are that great. -- Simon [ [EMAIL PROTECTED] ] *\ "Ah, here we are - `How to Raise the \** ****** ]-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-+-[ **\ Dead.'" - Bart Simpson \* ****** [ Htag.pl 0.0.22 ] ***\ \
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-xfce-devel mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-xfce-devel
