also sprach Christian Schoenebeck <schoenebeck@software-engineering.org> [2005.05.14.1320 +0200]: > No, it sounds better like Gentoo. Because APT could automatically > manage precompiled binary packages as well as custom (from source) > compiled packages seamlessly together with one tool and operation. I believe Gentoo can do this. > apt-build looks nice, but I think it's better to integrate source > management directly into apt-get, because that way you can use > precompiled and custom compiled packages automatically and > transparently with one tool. Unix is the world of small tools in which monolithic swiss army knives are frowned upon. APT does not install binary packages, that's dpkg. Thus, if you want your suggestion to be seriously considered, the best procedure would be to provide a dpkg-equivalent for source packages, which does exactly what you want in such a way that APT does not have to do more than download files and distribute them to handlers, like dpkg and your new tool. Don't get me wrong, I like your suggestion. I think it will only stand a real chance if you provide some reference implementation which does not change APT too much, and which certainly does not change the way APT is currently working. > Another feature I really would like to see is to have patches automatically > generated. Consider you have a build tree with all the sources, you simply > edit one of the sources in the build directory and APT will then > automatically diff the changes you made and store it as a patch in a patch > directory. Have a look at dpatch and dpatch-edit-patch. It's not automatic the way you want it, but that's good since I don't think automation is the right thing per default. > On version upgrades the sources in the source tree might > completely be replaced and APT will then (re)apply your custom, > automatically generated patches against the new sources (or at > least try so). Yeah, this sounds like a job for dpatch. > > Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! > > But I do not. CC appreciated. I wasn't even aware this was > a public list. Maybe due to the odd name of this list. Yes, hysterical raisins. No harm done, don't worry. If you prefer CCs, please consider setting the Mail-Followup-To header appropriately. I am not sure KMail can do this automatically, though. > Btw many source packages from Testing/Sarge do not compile right > away. Shouldn't a serious bug report opened against each of those > packages? If they do not compile under the appropriate environment, then yes. However, you have to make sure that this isn't your problem. For instance, are you sure you have all build dependencies installed? apt-get build-dep foobar makes sure that you have everything installed so that you can do apt-get source --compile foobar If that fails and you can be sure it's not due to a local configuration problem, you have uncovered a serious bug and should research and file it. -- Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list! .''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org> : :' : proud Debian developer, admin, user, and author `. `'` `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing a system Invalid/expired PGP subkeys? Use subkeys.pgp.net as keyserver! beauty, brains, availability, personality; pick any two.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature