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

Re: Intent to remove waf from Debian

Luca Falavigna <dktrkranz@debian.org> writes:

> after some time spent to reflect and discuss, I think we reached a
> point of no return regarding waf package in Debian. I try to summarize
> what happened in the past months.

Thanks very much for responsibly working to make this package behave
well with the Debian system and to work with upstream. It's a pity
upstream was uncooperative with these goals.

> As a personal note, I discourage using waf as build system of choice:
> during these months I realized waf introduces backward incompatible
> changes every releases, this can lead to build failures very
> frequently. Sticking with older releases is the suggested solution by
> upstream, but may expose to bugs fixed in newer releases only.

Indeed, this kind of thinking — bundling third-party code with one's
application and resisting efforts to de-couple for lower code
duplication/divergence and maintenance effort — seems to be
disproportionately high with many developers of Python code in
particular (certainly not all, and probably not even a majority; but
enough to be a problem). I don't know what the origin is, but it's
frustrating to see it repeated.

It will be a shame to lose ‘waf’, which might over time have become a
good option for a flexible, reliable build system. It seems the current
developers don't want that though, so I think your choice is correct.

 \         “If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we |
  `\           despise, we don't believe in it at all.” —Noam Chomsky, |
_o__)                                                       1992-11-25 |
Ben Finney

Attachment: pgpIUjvEOzf6a.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: