Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
* Goswin von Brederlow goswin-...@web.de, 2010-09-22, 11:39: apt-get install linux-2.6:src where src is just another architecture (at least for the user interface). apt-get install foo:src should then install the source and also all Build-Depends(-Indep) of the source. Besides packages Build-Depending on source packages this is also verry usefull for working on sources. The foo:src package will be marked manual while all Build-Depends remain automatic. When one is done working with a source one can purge foo:src and all the Build-Depends can be autoremoved if nothing else needs them. For the latter problem, you may find sourcedeps.debian.net useful: http://blog.djpig.de/2007/09/08 -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Josselin Mouette j...@debian.org writes: Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 à 03:08 +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit : * Hector Oron hector.o...@gmail.com, 2010-09-15, 21:26: c) allow build depends on source packages, which it is probably a worst idea. On the contrary, I think that allowing source packages to be installable in the same way as binary packages is an excellent idea. Imagine you can do: apt-get install src:linux-2.6 which will install Linux sources into a standard location, or upgrade it if it's already installed. I agree this is a cleaner solution, but how do you ensure there are sources (deb-src) referenced in the sources.list ? Plus, these packages would (in the current state of affairs) lack a description. Going by what multiarch proposed and apt already supports that should be apt-get install linux-2.6:src where src is just another architecture (at least for the user interface). apt-get install foo:src should then install the source and also all Build-Depends(-Indep) of the source. Besides packages Build-Depending on source packages this is also verry usefull for working on sources. The foo:src package will be marked manual while all Build-Depends remain automatic. When one is done working with a source one can purge foo:src and all the Build-Depends can be autoremoved if nothing else needs them. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87iq1y86dm@frosties.localdomain
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Hector Oron hector.o...@gmail.com writes: Dear developers, ABSTRACT How to enable in some special cases a way to allow one source package have multiple maintainers within Debian archive. It might be better to say they have different flavours which should (out of practicallity) or must be build on their own. You say huh? should? must? Well, should is the case you described. You have different (teams of) maintainers with different extra patches or use cases that work best on their own. Or building all the flavours at once would create a monster package that would take forever to build and thus hinder developing the source. But there are also must cases, at least for now. For cross compiling you need certain libraries like libgcc1, packaged as libgcc1-armel-cross for example. The libgcc1-armel-cross is an arch:all package to be used by any cross compiler of any arch compiling for armel. Lacking all the cross compilers the package must also be compiled on armel, at least for now. On the other hand libgcc1-mipsel-cross is build on mipsel and also arch:all. But any package upload must contain all the arch:all packages of a source. Which means the gcc maintainer would have to build gcc on all architectures manually and merge the results to get all the arch:all packages for an upload. Something that is just not feasable. So libgcc1-armel-cross must be build seperate from the normal gcc package and libgcc1-mipsel-cross too. There needs to be one gcc-x.y-$arch source package per architecture for full cross compile coverage. With the above proposal they would all Build-Depend on the gcc source and only contain a minimal debian dir though. They could probably also be just binNMUed whenever gcc-x.y is uploaded, something that could even be automated. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bp7q85la@frosties.localdomain
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:39:01 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Going by what multiarch proposed and apt already supports that should be apt-get install linux-2.6:src where src is just another architecture (at least for the user interface). Why do people hate vowels so much? Cheers, Julien signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Julien Cristau writes (Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source): Why do people hate vowels so much? Bcs f y lv thm t y cn wrt ncmprhnsbl gbbrsh mch mr ffctvly. Ls y sv smll mnt f typng. Ian. (sorry) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/19609.60607.635924.856...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
On 22 Sep 12:47, Ian Jackson wrote: Julien Cristau writes (Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source): Why do people hate vowels so much? Bcs f y lv thm t y cn wrt ncmprhnsbl gbbrsh mch mr ffctvly. Ls y sv smll mnt f typng. ^Lts surely? -- Brett Parker http://www.sommitrealweird.co.uk/ PGP Fingerprint 1A9E C066 EDEE 6746 36CB BD7F 479E C24F 95C7 1D61 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100922123237.ga32...@sommitrealweird.co.uk
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Julien Cristau jcris...@debian.org writes: On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 11:39:01 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Going by what multiarch proposed and apt already supports that should be apt-get install linux-2.6:src where src is just another architecture (at least for the user interface). Why do people hate vowels so much? Cheers, Julien Call it source if you like. The point was that the arch follows the package name. MfG Goswin -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87tylh7w2u@frosties.localdomain
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Brett Parker writes (Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source): On 22 Sep 12:47, Ian Jackson wrote: Julien Cristau writes (Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source): Why do people hate vowels so much? Bcs f y lv thm t y cn wrt ncmprhnsbl gbbrsh mch mr ffctvly. Ls y sv smll mnt f typng. ^Lts surely? No :-). Perhaps ls rather than Ls would have been more correct. I'm not sure of the correct rule for this situation... (If you're thinking of Lets, surely the sentence you are contemplating is missing its subject?) Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/19610.15957.393564.977...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: Brett Parker writes (Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source): On 22 Sep 12:47, Ian Jackson wrote: Julien Cristau writes (Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source): Why do people hate vowels so much? Bcs f y lv thm t y cn wrt ncmprhnsbl gbbrsh mch mr ffctvly. Ls y sv smll mnt f typng. ^Lts surely? No :-). Perhaps ls rather than Ls would have been more correct. I'm not sure of the correct rule for this situation... (If you're thinking of Lets, surely the sentence you are contemplating is missing its subject?) I'll bite: grep -i '^l[aeiou]*s[aeiou]*$' /usr/share/dict/american-english-insane Lais Laise Laius Laos Las Lasi Leasia Leesa Leese Leis Leos Les Lesa Lias Liesa Lis Lisa Lise Loasa Lois Loise Loos Los Lose Louis Louisa Louise Ls Luis Luisa Luise Lusa Lusia laas laesie laiose laius laos las lasa lase laus leas lease lees leese leis leos les lese liaise lias lies lieus lis lisu loasa looies loos loose los lose louies louis louise louse ls luaus lues Which one is it?! Unless it is 'Also' and your capital L is nothing more than a red herring. -matt zagrabelny -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlktinp-ozwt2ttu8-wjpww6bØxnuz3_svnsby...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
On Wed, 22 Sep 2010, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: Call it source if you like. The point was that the arch follows the package name. It's interesting that this is exactly backwards from the way the BTS does it. [Source packages are src:foopkg.] Don Armstrong -- [The] JK-88 [coffee] percolator is capable of achieving the ultimate balance of aroma and density, aftertaste and emollience, pentosans and tannins. The next step is to reduce the cost of the HPLC-E technology to the point where it can be manufactured for less than the cost of a Boeing 757. -- Charles Stross Extracts from the Club Diary in _Toast_ p83-4 http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100922202731.gd6...@teltox.donarmstrong.com
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Matt Zagrabelny writes (Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source): On Wed, Sep 22, 2010 at 12:35 PM, Ian Jackson ijack...@chiark.greenend.org.uk wrote: No :-). Perhaps ls rather than Ls would have been more correct. I'm not sure of the correct rule for this situation... (If you're thinking of Lets, surely the sentence you are contemplating is missing its subject?) I'll bite: ... Which one is it?! Unless it is 'Also' and your capital L is nothing more than a red herring. I'm afraid you've got it. As I say, I wasn't sure what the correct rule is but starting the sentence with ls looked wrong. Ian. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/19610.36682.624131.677...@chiark.greenend.org.uk
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Le jeudi 16 septembre 2010 à 03:08 +0200, Jakub Wilk a écrit : * Hector Oron hector.o...@gmail.com, 2010-09-15, 21:26: c) allow build depends on source packages, which it is probably a worst idea. On the contrary, I think that allowing source packages to be installable in the same way as binary packages is an excellent idea. Imagine you can do: apt-get install src:linux-2.6 which will install Linux sources into a standard location, or upgrade it if it's already installed. I agree this is a cleaner solution, but how do you ensure there are sources (deb-src) referenced in the sources.list ? Plus, these packages would (in the current state of affairs) lack a description. -- .''`. : :' : “You would need to ask a lawyer if you don't know `. `' that a handshake of course makes a valid contract.” `--- J???rg Schilling -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1284621777.10697.21.ca...@meh
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
On Thu, Sep 16, 2010 at 09:22:57AM +0200, Josselin Mouette wrote:
Plus, these packages would (in the current state of affairs) lack a
description.
On this topic, we have our friend #555743. /shameless-plug
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -o- PhD in Computer Science \ PostDoc @ Univ. Paris 7
z...@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} -- http://upsilon.cc/zack/
Quando anche i santi ti voltano le spalle, | . |. I've fans everywhere
ti resta John Fante -- V. Caposella ...| ..: |.. -- C. Adams
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Le 16/09/2010 09:22, Josselin Mouette a écrit : I agree this is a cleaner solution, but how do you ensure there are sources (deb-src) referenced in the sources.list ? You don't need to. The package would be reported as uninstallable. Some message suggesting to add deb-src lines to sources.list could be displayed in such circumstances, though. -- Stéphane -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4c91cdb7.20...@debian.org
[RFC] Binary packages containing the source
Dear developers, ABSTRACT How to enable in some special cases a way to allow one source package have multiple maintainers within Debian archive. RATIONALE There are already a number of packages in the archive which ship sources in a binary package, in some cases this is very useful, so without having to duplicate the sources, there can be multiple maintainers for one source without having to be forced to team up. Ideally, a package should have a binary and a source part, but in some cases it is very useful to provide this kind of packages, as it is the case for GCC/EGLIBC/LINUX/BINUTILS (toolchain) packages, so ADA, JAVA, D or cross compilers do not need to ship sources along the package. So, basically what it is being done by some packages is to build depend on those binaries shipping the source (*-source) to provide tweaked or new binary packages with different configurations. Let's make an example, I would like to have a uClibc cross toolchain, most sources are already in the archive and my changes might be to intrusive to the packages itself, plus I need to talk to different developers to coordinate the effort and rely on their kindness to apply patches for something they might not feel like maintaining. I might also want to generate packages for one architecture which builds for any architecture and have different source packages named uclibc-sh4, uclibc-avr32, uclibc-powerpcspe, uclibc-armel,... Imagine if one needs to ship *same* source per each one on those packages, this is bloating the Debian archive. SOLUTION Approaches I could work on my own without bother anyone could be: a) build depend on *-source binary packages, which it is already a practice and it does not need any infrastructure changes but there is lack of standarization among those packages, some of them ship patches aside with unpatched source, some others patched source, source might be compressed and compression might change from time to time. IMO should it should be fixed and standarized in Debian Policy and have binary -source packages which contain .dsc, .diff.gz, etc. Comments? Other alternatives commented on IRC to be able to allow one source for different maintainers: b) Have one *.orig.tar.gz and allow several *.diff.gz, which it is probably a bad idea, as it requires infrastructure changes and diffs need to be coordinated whenever a new *.orig.tar.gz appears. c) allow build depends on source packages, which it is probably a worst idea. d) team up or die. A list of packages that might be useful to provide in such way I can think of right now are: linux-2.6, eglibc, binutils, gcc-X.Y, gdb, busybox, uclibc, newlib, ... Any comments on standarizing such behaviour in Debian Policy? Best regards, -- Héctor Orón Our Sun unleashes tremendous flares expelling hot gas into the Solar System, which one day will disconnect us. -- Day DVB-T stop working nicely Video flare: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap100510.html -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/aanlkti==�fe9axvpst_vr+s3ok=vrkhmccf+aka...@mail.gmail.com
Re: [RFC] Binary packages containing the source
* Hector Oron hector.o...@gmail.com, 2010-09-15, 21:26: c) allow build depends on source packages, which it is probably a worst idea. On the contrary, I think that allowing source packages to be installable in the same way as binary packages is an excellent idea. Imagine you can do: apt-get install src:linux-2.6 which will install Linux sources into a standard location, or upgrade it if it's already installed. Incidentally, this will allow to trivially implement data packages[0]: a dummy binary package could depend on its own source package. [0] http://wiki.debian.org/DataPackages -- Jakub Wilk signature.asc Description: Digital signature
