Re: Feaping Creature-ism in core Debian Packages
Hi,
I am confused about whether we are addressing package build,
or package installation in this discussion. The discussion seems to
jump back and forth suddenly -- possibly this means I am missing the
point.
>>"Dale" == Dale Scheetz <dwarf@polaris.net> writes:
Dale> On 30 Aug 1999, Stephen Zander wrote:
>>
>> Justify this in terms of the perl-base package please. While I agree
Dale> Why should I do that? Perlisms in installation scripts do not limit
Dale> themselves to the base perl language, so saying that the base
Dale> functionality of perl is stable isn't sufficient.
If by installation scripts you mean {pre,post}{inst,rm}
scripts, then that is a bug, since the packages must only rely on
Base/essential packages in those scripts. If you mean intallation
scripts as those run by ./debian/rules, never mind.
Dale> It has been regularly possible to scrog the installation of
Dale> non-perl packages that use perl scripts during installation, if
Dale> the perl installation fails for any reason. This has happened
Dale> on several of our past releases requiring severe work arounds
Dale> in order to get the system back in shape. We already have the
Dale> same possible failure point with bash, enough so that folks are
Dale> constantly talking about replacing it.
This again seems like you are talking about amintainer
scripts. If that is the case, perl-base is essential; and yes,
failure of essential packages can indeed scrog a system (what a
lovely word).
Dale> If we are going to use perl in install methods, then why not
Dale> lex and yacc, python and tk/tcl?
If you are talking about installing packages, one should
either use a (pre-)[1]dependency, or only use essential packages
(perl is provided by perl-base) Building make, for example, does
require lex and yacc.
[1] I think if your pre-inst requires said package, it has to be a
pre-dependency.
Dale> The reason for not doing so is the same reason I would prefer
Dale> to stick to shell scripts. It keeps the point of failure in one
Dale> location where effort and care can be taken to keep things
Dale> going smoothly. Diversifying installation scripts simply
Dale> creates more possibilities for failure.
But we already have decided on a set of Essential packages
that can be used. There are too many things that depend on the
Essential packages being jsut that.
Dale> Concrete example:
Dale> I _do_ have perl, and perl-base, installed on the Ultra, yet
Dale> debhelper, which is a perl based package building tool, will
Dale> not build, although the pre-buildt binar-all package installs
Dale> and works OK, as best I can tell.
That seems like you are no longer talking about installation
scripts. Well, until we have elaborated on source dependency issues,
I am not convinced that this is a major deal.
A number of my packages provide HTML format documentation (by
running texi2html). In my opinion, the advantages of the general user
having this documentation justifies the cost of people _building_ the
package
Dale> Why are we sticking calls to perl routines into a rules file in
Dale> the first place?
To make a better package? ;-)
manoj
--
After watching my newly-retired dad spend two weeks learning how to
make a new folder, it became obvious that "intuitive" mostly means
"what the writer or speaker of intuitive likes". Bruce Ediger,
bediger@teal.csn.org, on X the intuitiveness of a Mac interface
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
Key C7261095 fingerprint = CB D9 F4 12 68 07 E4 05 CC 2D 27 12 1D F5 E8 6E
Reply to: