[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [internal-projects] [Debian-multimedia] Start an official internal project!

Le Fri, Feb 14, 2003 at 07:35:26PM -0400, andrea.glorioso@centrotemporeale.it écrivait:
> I'll try to be as direct as possible given my position: *I* personally
> like Debian and sincerely your  attitude is convincing to try becoming
> a  Debian   Developer.   However,  inside   AGNULA,   there  are  some
> considerations which  make me think twice  before becoming an official
> debian developer - mainly that amongst  the partners there is also Red
> Hat France.  Did I say "diplomacy"?


We have alien to create .rpm out of .deb ;-)

And you can be a Debian developer for Demudi, that shouldn't change
anthing wrt your position in Agnula. BTW, I know some RedHat employees
who are Debian developers ... :-)

>     rh> I think it's best choice even if it's not always that easy to
>     rh> do ...  build dependencies regularly need to be tweaked for
>     rh> recompile. I'm considering proposing a change to debian policy
>     rh> to ease the recompile by having several separate set of build
>     rh> dependencies.
> Have you already something in mind?  As I'm interested in the issues
> of software engineering, automated building and conflict resolution I
> would like to help you if I can.

Yes I do. Basically my idea was just to have two set of
build-dependencies :
- one for debian unstable
- a minimal build-dependency set

That's because we regularly impose some build dependencies just to make
sure that all autobuilders will use the latest version of the package
(for example my libdbd-pg-perl package depends on the latest
postgresql-dev when it fact it can work with any postgresql but I wanted
it to be compiled with the latest PG so that all packages can move to
testing together ...).

If we had a set of minimal build-dependencies, then we could more easily
recompile the package on a older distribution without guessing if the
build-dependency was meant because of a real dependency or just because
the maintainer wanted to make sure it gets recompiled with the latest
version. And without doing useless recompile of some packages when it
was not really needed ...

This could probably be improved. The only objection I heard is that it's
more work to the maintainer to maintain two set of build dependencies,
that's right but that's unavoidable. Unless we create a central database
of minimal build dependencies based on the experience of people who are
doing recompiles (and volunteer submissions from cooperative maintainers).

> You are tempting me

That's the goal, I'm trying to convince you. :-) I want to show you that
you don't have much to loose, that Debian's infrastructure is really
adapted. If things are not evolving like you wanted, it's all free, you
can always take everything outside of Debian and do your own things

Raphaël Hertzog -+- http://www.ouaza.com
Formation Linux et logiciel libre : http://www.logidee.com

Reply to: