Bill Allombert writes:
> The magic of dh comes by making assumption on the upstream build system.
> When these assumptions are correct then it is much less verbose than
> debhelper. When they are not correct the maintainer needs to override
> all incorrect guesses, in addition to writing the
On Sat, May 25, 2019 at 01:26:47PM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
> Hi. Almost two weeks ago [1] I started a discussion on whether we
> wanted to increase the strength of our recommendation of the dh
> sequencer from debhelper.
> This message is a consensus call summarizing my reading of the
>
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:14:33PM +0200, Philip Hands wrote:
> Adrian Bunk writes:
> ...
> > Often the most difficult part of packaging are the unique rules the
> > Debian ftp team requires for debian/copyright that are not required in
> > distributions with actual lawyers. That's a completely
On Mon, May 27, 2019 at 08:42:26AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
>
> Does that paper you talk about point to _causes_ Debian packaging being
> more scary? Is it a) complexities related to hardening, cross-building,
> bootstrapping etc. or b) lack of a single¹ unified build framework, or
> c)
> "Ian" == Ian Jackson writes:
Ian> Firstly, I want to say that I think this is an awesome way to
Ian> conduct this discussion/decisionmaking/whatever. Thank you.
Thanks.
I'm really hoping it does end up working well and that we can train many
people to do it.
Ian> Sam Hartman
Firstly, I want to say that I think this is an awesome way to conduct
this discussion/decisionmaking/whatever. Thank you.
Sam Hartman writes ("Consensus Call: Do We Want to Require or Recommend DH;
comments by 2019-06-16"):
> Recommendation
> ==
>
> There are some exceptions where
Jonas Meurer writes:
> Depending on the software you packages, doing the initial packaging
> already requires a lot of knowledge about library handling, doc build
> systems, makefiles, the filesystem hierarchy standard, language-specific
> toolchains, etc.
> To properly build the package you
On May 27, 2019 11:50:38 AM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
>Scott> If we want to make not using dh except in certain situations
>Scott> a bug, it seems like something for a policy should kind of
>Scott> item. We have an existing process for
On 2019-05-27.12:27, Jonas Meurer wrote:
> Unfortunately I don't have *links* either, but when introducing people
> into the world of Debian packaging recently, I always got the impression
> that they were heavily overwhelmed by the complexity of the Debian
> ecosystem.
As a recently promoted DM,
Hi Sam,
Sam Hartman:
>> "Jonas" == Jonas Meurer writes:
> Jonas> My opinion is that more uniformity in packaging practices
> Jonas> will bring a bit more simplicity as well. Therefore I applaud
> Jonas> Sam's initiative to require DH whereever it's sensible.
>
> Hi.
> I'm acting
> "Jonas" == Jonas Meurer writes:
Jonas> My opinion is that more uniformity in packaging practices
Jonas> will bring a bit more simplicity as well. Therefore I applaud
Jonas> Sam's initiative to require DH whereever it's sensible.
Hi.
I'm acting as a facilitator here not as a
On 5/27/19 6:29 AM, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>>> We "uphold this reputation" by maintaining many packages, which is
>>> good.
>>
>> Do we? I am now using nix to get packages for stuff not in Debian. Our
>> package count is
> "Scott" == Scott Kitterman writes:
Scott> If we want to make not using dh except in certain situations
Scott> a bug, it seems like something for a policy should kind of
Scott> item. We have an existing process for updating policy, so
Scott> this should probably be kicked
Adrian Bunk:
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:34:39AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> ...
>> We have a reputation of having difficult
>> packaging practices. We uphold this reputation as long as we have so
>> many ways to do the same thing.
>
> [citation needed]
>
> I do honestly not know what
Quoting Andreas Tille (2019-05-27 06:29:05)
> On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > > We "uphold this reputation" by maintaining many packages, which is
> > > good.
> >
> > Do we? I am now using nix to get packages for stuff not in Debian.
> > Our package count is
On May 25, 2019 5:26:47 PM UTC, Sam Hartman wrote:
>
>Hi. Almost two weeks ago [1] I started a discussion on whether we
>wanted to increase the strength of our recommendation of the dh
>sequencer from debhelper.
>This message is a consensus call summarizing my reading of the
>discussion.
...
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 07:28:55PM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> > We "uphold this reputation" by maintaining many packages, which is
> > good.
>
> Do we? I am now using nix to get packages for stuff not in Debian. Our
> package count is artificially inflated by *-perl packages, golang-*
>
Adrian Bunk writes:
...
> Often the most difficult part of packaging are the unique rules the
> Debian ftp team requires for debian/copyright that are not required in
> distributions with actual lawyers. That's a completely separate topic.
That seems needlessly snide, and glosses over the
On Sun, May 26, 2019 at 11:34:39AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>...
> We have a reputation of having difficult
> packaging practices. We uphold this reputation as long as we have so
> many ways to do the same thing.
[citation needed]
I do honestly not know what statements/comparisons from
❦ 26 mai 2019 12:04 +02, Jonas Smedegaard :
>> > * People who make changes across the archive such as enabling
>> > hardening, cross-building, bootstrapping, etc benefit
>> > significantly from more uniformity in packaging practices. The
>> > time they spend working on packages that
Quoting Vincent Bernat (2019-05-26 11:34:39)
> ❦ 25 mai 2019 13:26 -04, Sam Hartman :
>
> > * People who make changes across the archive such as enabling
> > hardening, cross-building, bootstrapping, etc benefit
> > significantly from more uniformity in packaging practices. The
> >
❦ 25 mai 2019 13:26 -04, Sam Hartman :
> * People who make changes across the archive such as enabling hardening,
> cross-building, bootstrapping, etc benefit significantly from more
> uniformity in packaging practices. The time they spend working on
> packages that use dh is
Hi. Almost two weeks ago [1] I started a discussion on whether we
wanted to increase the strength of our recommendation of the dh
sequencer from debhelper.
This message is a consensus call summarizing my reading of the
discussion.
[1]
23 matches
Mail list logo
