Re: Bug#70269: automatic build fails for potato

[Anand Kumria <wildfire@progsoc.uts.edu.au>]

On Tue, Aug 29, 2000 at 11:57:32AM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> >>"Hamish" == Hamish Moffatt <hamish@debian.org> writes:
> 
>  Hamish> The package could be redone not to use debhelper. At the same time,
>  Hamish> the package could be rewritten not to use the C compiler.
> 
>  Hamish> Lazy programmers who require a C compiler, what is the world
>  Hamish> coming to? :-) 
> 
> 	Yes indeed, there appears to be a modicum of common sense in
>  play here, Even though anything can be coded in assembly, or for a
>  turing machine, the principle here takes into account the effort
>  involved. It also tries to take into account the number of packages
>  that would need to write in an dependency if it was not a build
>  essential. 
> 
> 	For a program written in C, a total  rewrite may be required
>  if one needs to remove the3 dependency on the compiler; however,
>  helper packages are not deemed to be that hared to replace. (You do
>  know what your helper package is doing, don't you?)

I did care at one point but don't any longer. It requires less effort
to figure it out anew each time a problem crops up.

Computers -> More Time.
          ^^
That transition point is software/tools which give me that. For the
vast majority of developers tools like debhelper do that.

For the other vast majority of people, C Compilers do the same thing. 
(You do know what your C compiler is doing, don't you?). The same can
apply to any large package (the kernel, X). (In howmuch detail do
you know what they are doing?).

One of nice things that devolves from having "interested" people look
after packages is that they can see to the details, which are important,
but not to everyone.

Now if only there was a distribution where people looked after packages
they had an interest in. Hey! Isn't that Debian?

> 	However, given the number of people who seem to automatically
>  assume helper packages, is it time to revisit this issue?

I think so.

> 	manoj
>  i'll fight tooth and nail any effort to make helper packages mandatory

Currently 87% of all packages [0] use some build scripts (not even counting
dbs -- doogie's build system -- of which some large packages; e.g. X use).

Not having the helper packages included in the autobuild system appears to
benefit, at most, around ~470 packages. 

Regards,
Anand

[0] Raw taken from Joey Hess's debhelper charts which can be found at
<URL: http://www.kitenet.net/programs/debhelper/stats/data>