Re: Bug#843325: ITP: waf -- Tool for configuring, building, and installing projects
Piotr Ożarowski <piotr@debian.org> wrote:
> [Walter Landry, 2016-11-08]
>> Doing a quick search
>>
>> curl -s https://codesearch.debian.net/results/22044ee2fe5c4350/packages.json | jq -r '.Packages[]' | wc -l
>
> this result is no longer available
Oh bother. I did a slightly more sophisticated search and got 36 results
ardour, aster, aubio, audacity, avw.lv2, diodon, flowcanvas, fomp,
fonts-sil-padauk, ganv, gmidimonitor, jackd2, jalv, kupfer, libcsp,
lilv, lv2, lv2core, lvtk, lysdr, mda-lv2, mpv, ns3, patchage,
pd-aubio, pugl, py3cairo, raul, serd, sord, sprai, sratom, suil,
sushi, xmds2, xmms2
I searched for 'waflib/Tools' on codesearch.debian.org.
>> shows 39 packages might also benefit from a central installation of
>> waf.
>
> IMHO there are 39 packages out there that should be patched to use
> something else (or at least strongly suggest upstream to use something
> else and watch waf changes very carefully in each new upstream release)
>
>> Waf has had a somewhat contentious history in Debian. It was packaged
>> and then removed upon request by upstream.
>
> it's your time, but please feel warned
>
>> I have had a conversation with upstream (Thomas Nagy). Nagy still
>> opposes a generic 'waf' package, but is fine with giving it a specific
>> version number (e.g. waf-1.9.5).
>
> what's the benefit of having ~39 waf-version packages (with hostile
> upstream)
Part of the reason for this discussion is so that upstream will not be
so hostile. Nagy was also fine if we used a different name. Then it
would be something like firefox and iceweasel. That is not ideal, but
it is not without precedent.
> over 39 packages that bundle waf?
There would be one waf package. Packagers would have the option of
using the waf package. They might prefer that over the UnpackWaf
option. I certainly would. The differences between the waf versions
are not so large, especially for minor versions.
Cheers,
Walter Landry
Reply to: