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

Re: Secret changes for binNMUs

On Thu, Nov 24, 2005 at 06:51:24PM +0100, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Wouter Verhelst <wouter@debian.org> writes:
> > They were, originally. Ryan's been very active on it since, and it's
> > diverged a bit from the code you're maintaining.
> Then he should send patches and bug reports to the debian
> package. 

When the sbuild package got orphaned two years ago or so, I asked Ryan
whether he would like to maintain it, and he said he was not interested.
Which is totally fine for me and about everybody else.

> This split between the user/developer visible sbuild and the secret
> actual buildd is just not in the spirit of Debian.

1. Please drop the `secret' immediately.  Unless you really want to call
http://www.debian.org/devel/buildd `secret'.  That your mail got resent
with the this subject to debian-devel-announce is already stressing it
*a lot*, IMHO.

2. I do not see why this should be against the spirit of Debian.  As I
stated already, the sbuild package was always a fork intended to be more
usuable by humans, whereas the real sbuild is optimized for the buildds.

> > I personally see the packages in unstable as something good for
> > end-users who want to use it, or understand how the system works; but
> > for Debian's purposes, it's not optimal.
> So non "cabal" members should look at a different sbuild and then
> magically figure out where and how the secret one differs? What is the
> point in looking at sbuild if it isn't THE sbuild?

The point of looking at the sbuild package is to have a convenient tool
for people to build their packages in a chroot, similar to pbuilder.
Nothing more, nothing less.  Please keep your cabalistic tendencies to
yourself, or at least off this mailing list.

> Last year the aim was to get the buildd sbuild and debian sbuild back
> in sync and it pains me to see Ryan silently diferting it further and
> further instead of aiding that goal.

Again: It is the sbuild's packages maintainers duty to sync with
upstream, not the other way round, and we've been slacking (again,
patches welcome).  You seem to look at this from the wrong side of the

If somebody wants to package wanna-build, buildd and the accompayning
sbuild, they shall be my guest; but I believe the packages provided at
db.debian.org are easy enough to setup (as has been shown numerous times
now), and I will not engage in that undertaking.  If that happens, we
can discuss how packages should be named, and whether the current sbuild
package should be renamed.

Until then, less drama would be welcome.


Michael Banck
Debian Developer

Reply to: