Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-12 Thread IOhannes zmölnig
On 11/11/2010 08:30 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
 
 I'd like to have my packages work on all Debian platforms, but I have
 never worked with hurd or kfreebsd, nor have had any feedback that there
 are problems.  As far as I can tell, my packages build on all Debian
 platforms.  

just call the build-logs for any of those packages. e.g.
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=pd-motex

but this was just meant as an example for the added benefit of using a
common cdbs/dh/.. snippet.


fgmarsd
IOhannes






signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-12 Thread Hans-Christoph Steiner


On Nov 12, 2010, at 4:43 AM, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:


On 11/11/2010 08:30 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:


I'd like to have my packages work on all Debian platforms, but I have
never worked with hurd or kfreebsd, nor have had any feedback that  
there

are problems.  As far as I can tell, my packages build on all Debian
platforms.


just call the build-logs for any of those packages. e.g.
https://buildd.debian.org/status/package.php?p=pd-motex

but this was just meant as an example for the added benefit of using a
common cdbs/dh/.. snippet.



Ah yes, still learning my way around all the Debian tools, they are  
pretty large.  A common snippet would be great, no argument here.


About the HURD/kFreeBSD issue, it seems to be a linking issue, do we  
have to handle the linking differently with those kernels?  I guess  
the Makefile is lacking uname detection for those kernels, since its  
looking for 'Linux'.  Hopefully just using the same settings for the  
other two kernels will work.


.hc




We have nothing to fear from love and commitment. - New York Senator  
Diane Savino, trying to convince the NY Senate to pass a gay marriage  
bill



___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-12 Thread IOhannes zmölnig
On 11/12/2010 06:10 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

 Ah yes, still learning my way around all the Debian tools, they are
 pretty large.  A common snippet would be great, no argument here.

so now, we only have to do it :-)

 About the HURD/kFreeBSD issue, it seems to be a linking issue, do we
 have to handle the linking differently with those kernels?  I guess the
 Makefile is lacking uname detection for those kernels, since its looking
 for 'Linux'.  Hopefully just using the same settings for the other two
 kernels will work.

yes, i think the only problem is that the Makefile thinks that it is
compiling for an unknown target os (because uname returns something
unknown), thus no CFLAGS, LDFLAGS,... are defined which means the
defaults: the .c files are compiled as applications, which obviously
won't work at all.

and yes, you should be able to use the very same flags as on linux (and
see the other thread why it might be a good idea to keep pd_linux as the
filename extension for all debian)

fgmasr
IOhannes



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-12 Thread Hans-Christoph Steiner


On Nov 12, 2010, at 12:30 PM, IOhannes zmölnig wrote:


On 11/12/2010 06:10 PM, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:


Ah yes, still learning my way around all the Debian tools, they are
pretty large.  A common snippet would be great, no argument here.


so now, we only have to do it :-)


About the HURD/kFreeBSD issue, it seems to be a linking issue, do we
have to handle the linking differently with those kernels?  I guess  
the
Makefile is lacking uname detection for those kernels, since its  
looking
for 'Linux'.  Hopefully just using the same settings for the other  
two

kernels will work.


yes, i think the only problem is that the Makefile thinks that it is
compiling for an unknown target os (because uname returns something
unknown), thus no CFLAGS, LDFLAGS,... are defined which means the
defaults: the .c files are compiled as applications, which obviously
won't work at all.

and yes, you should be able to use the very same flags as on linux  
(and
see the other thread why it might be a good idea to keep pd_linux as  
the

filename extension for all debian)



Works for me.  I have a bunch of deadlines so I won't be able to touch  
this for a while.  That's why I just had a big rush of work: I wanted  
to get it in before I was saddled with lots of things.


.hc




[T]he greatest purveyor of violence in the world today [is] my own  
government. - Martin Luther King, Jr.





___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-11 Thread Jonas Smedegaard

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:18:44PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 20:27 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:

Given that most pd libraries use the same template, I think we can
leverage the use of cdbs here:

1. We ship (eg, in puredata-dev) a standard-pd-object.mk CDBS class
which includes the snippets needed for the shlibdeps and license
fiddling, and the makefile class.
2. rules files then become simply:

#!/usr/bin/make -f

LIBRARY_NAME = pdlib

include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/standard-pd-object.mk



What do you think?


That looks very handy, but I think the given library template is well
tuned.  For me the problem would be then learning cdbs for special
cases.  But since there are still at least 30 unpackaged Pd libraries, I
think having this as option makes sense. I'd call it something like
standard-pd-library.mk


If the word CDBS discourages you, then (since the proposal is to ship 
a template _separately_ from CDBS) you can just ship a snippet unrelated 
to CDBS.


Heck, you can even ship a snippet which uses short-form dh!

My point here is that there is nothing in CDBS to learn except for the 
parts that you include.  So if you find the CDBS templates more of a 
burden than a benefit, then don't use them - write your own from scratch 
instead: it is simply a make inclusion (at first - over time it may grow 
ugly, more ugly than CDBS).


(and yes, I personally favor CDBS over custom templates - no news there)


 - Jonas

--
 * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist  Internet-arkitekt
 * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

 [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-11 Thread IOhannes m zmoelnig
On 2010-11-11 09:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:


 include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/standard-pd-object.mk

 What do you think?

 That looks very handy, but I think the given library template is well
 tuned.  

well, i think the template library Makefile fails on the the kfreebsd
and hurd platforms (at least according to the build logs).

i understand that these platforms are not the main targets, but since we
are on debian, there is no good reason to not include them.

a common makefile snippet could help a lot (also on debian-derivatives
that have x86 derived architectures (e.g. i686), that could benefit from
enabling optimzations globally (think SIMD))


sidenote
the above looks a bit ironic to me...
within the pd-community i guess that i was (and am) one of the stronger
advocates of self-contained build-systems (there has been loads of
discussion on whether it is better to use a single Makefile for all (or
most) libraries or whether each library should have there own cloned
makefile.
the library template Makefile is basically the outcome of the latter,
and allows each library to build without having to download the entire
repository.

however, i think that those problems mainly arose because there is no
way to define build-dependency in a cross-platform way for ordinary
Pd-packages.
since now we are in the good position that we are talking about debian,
we actually have the possibility to use build-dependencies and i don't
see a reason to not do that.
/sidenote


For me the problem would be then learning cdbs for special
 cases.  But since there are still at least 30 unpackaged Pd libraries, I
 think having this as option makes sense. I'd call it something like
 standard-pd-library.mk

well, one practical problem would obviously be, that there currently is
no puredata-dev package yet, and it is unlikely to come before the
upstream release of Pd-0.43 (which was due in august, but was delayed
since then).

would it make sense to create a separate package (e.g.
puredata-debian-dev) for the sole purpose of centralizing the makefile
snippets?

this package could then include cdbs, dh,... so people could have their
pick.


fgmasdr
IOhannes



smime.p7s
Description: S/MIME Cryptographic Signature
___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-11 Thread Hans-Christoph Steiner


I'd like to have my packages work on all Debian platforms, but I have  
never worked with hurd or kfreebsd, nor have had any feedback that  
there are problems.  As far as I can tell, my packages build on all  
Debian platforms.  All I can say is: patches welcome.


.hc

On Nov 11, 2010, at 3:49 AM, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote:


On 2010-11-11 09:09, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:



include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/standard-pd-object.mk

What do you think?


That looks very handy, but I think the given library template is  
well

tuned.


well, i think the template library Makefile fails on the the kfreebsd
and hurd platforms (at least according to the build logs).

i understand that these platforms are not the main targets, but  
since we

are on debian, there is no good reason to not include them.

a common makefile snippet could help a lot (also on debian-derivatives
that have x86 derived architectures (e.g. i686), that could benefit  
from

enabling optimzations globally (think SIMD))


sidenote
the above looks a bit ironic to me...
within the pd-community i guess that i was (and am) one of the  
stronger

advocates of self-contained build-systems (there has been loads of
discussion on whether it is better to use a single Makefile for all  
(or

most) libraries or whether each library should have there own cloned
makefile.
the library template Makefile is basically the outcome of the  
latter,

and allows each library to build without having to download the entire
repository.

however, i think that those problems mainly arose because there is no
way to define build-dependency in a cross-platform way for ordinary
Pd-packages.
since now we are in the good position that we are talking about  
debian,

we actually have the possibility to use build-dependencies and i don't
see a reason to not do that.
/sidenote



For me the problem would be then learning cdbs for special
cases.  But since there are still at least 30 unpackaged Pd  
libraries, I

think having this as option makes sense. I'd call it something like
standard-pd-library.mk


well, one practical problem would obviously be, that there currently  
is

no puredata-dev package yet, and it is unlikely to come before the
upstream release of Pd-0.43 (which was due in august, but was delayed
since then).

would it make sense to create a separate package (e.g.
puredata-debian-dev) for the sole purpose of centralizing the  
makefile

snippets?

this package could then include cdbs, dh,... so people could have  
their

pick.


fgmasdr
IOhannes

___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers







All mankind is of one author, and is one volume; when one man dies,  
one chapter is not torn out of the book, but translated into a better  
language; and every chapter must be so translated -John Donne




___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-11 Thread Hans-Christoph Steiner


On Nov 11, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:18:44PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner  
wrote:

On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 20:27 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:

Given that most pd libraries use the same template, I think we can
leverage the use of cdbs here:

1. We ship (eg, in puredata-dev) a standard-pd-object.mk CDBS class
which includes the snippets needed for the shlibdeps and license
fiddling, and the makefile class.
2. rules files then become simply:

#!/usr/bin/make -f

LIBRARY_NAME = pdlib

include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/standard-pd-object.mk



What do you think?


That looks very handy, but I think the given library template is well
tuned.  For me the problem would be then learning cdbs for special
cases.  But since there are still at least 30 unpackaged Pd  
libraries, I

think having this as option makes sense. I'd call it something like
standard-pd-library.mk


If the word CDBS discourages you, then (since the proposal is to  
ship a template _separately_ from CDBS) you can just ship a snippet  
unrelated to CDBS.


Heck, you can even ship a snippet which uses short-form dh!

My point here is that there is nothing in CDBS to learn except for  
the parts that you include.  So if you find the CDBS templates more  
of a burden than a benefit, then don't use them - write your own  
from scratch instead: it is simply a make inclusion (at first - over  
time it may grow ugly, more ugly than CDBS).


(and yes, I personally favor CDBS over custom templates - no news  
there)



- Jonas


I have no problem against CDBS, indeed I have almost no experience  
with CDSB.  Its just that I know debhelper and its working well for  
me, so I don't see a reason for me to switch.  I won't dissuade anyone  
else from doing this tho, it sounds like a good idea.


.hc




A cellphone to me is just an opportunity to be irritated wherever you  
are. - Linus Torvalds



___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers


Re: Thoughts on pd object packaging - use of cdbs might be preferable?

2010-11-10 Thread Hans-Christoph Steiner
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 20:27 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
 Given that most pd libraries use the same template, I think we can
 leverage the use of cdbs here:
 
 1. We ship (eg, in puredata-dev) a standard-pd-object.mk CDBS class
 which includes the snippets needed for the shlibdeps and license
 fiddling, and the makefile class.
 2. rules files then become simply:
 
 #!/usr/bin/make -f
 
 LIBRARY_NAME = pdlib
 
 include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/standard-pd-object.mk
 
 
 
 What do you think?

That looks very handy, but I think the given library template is well
tuned.  For me the problem would be then learning cdbs for special
cases.  But since there are still at least 30 unpackaged Pd libraries, I
think having this as option makes sense. I'd call it something like
standard-pd-library.mk

.hc



___
pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list
pkg-multimedia-maintainers@lists.alioth.debian.org
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers