Re: duprkit User Repository
Hi,
The use of single-file format is not mandatory to the whole idea.
With no effort I transformed the single-file format into the traditional
format which you like:
https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection/tree/master/rover-traditional
Please choose use whatever you like.
On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 08:26:53AM -0400, Roberto C. Sánchez wrote:
> On Mon, Apr 08, 2019 at 10:47:20AM +0000, Mo Zhou wrote:
> If I interpret this correctly, your idea becomes, "use a single file
> package specification, except for the parts that live somewhere
> completely external and separate from the package." That seems like you
> have *increased* the complexity of the packaging format, rathern than
> decreased it.
It doesn't take more than 1 second to convert between a traditional
debian/ directory of the proposed single file format:
https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/fold
https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/blob/master/bin/unfold
And I don't prevent anybody from submitting a debian directory:
https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection/commit/6ba5e0a310dc287dbd8ff1b276e1c3da0d896ebd
I encourage people do whatever they like to get the thing done.
Strictly speaking the single-file format has indeed introduced a little
overhead but it's not mandatory.
> Even these other points seem like they require some effort to "prep" the
> packaging so that it exists in a single file and would require similar
> effort to separate the components out.
If such 1-second workload is unacceptable, just go in the traditional
way please.
https://github.com/dupr/DefaultCollection/commit/6ba5e0a310dc287dbd8ff1b276e1c3da0d896ebd
> All of this for "copy & pasting from webpages" seems like the epitome of
> "style over substance". Why on earth is copying and pasting from
> webpages *so* important that the entire packaging format has to be
> reworked?
I don't ask anybody to use it if you don't like the single-file format.
If such 1-second workload is unacceptable, just go in the traditional
way please.
> If somebody is challenged by the obstacle of 'apt-get source ...' or
> 'debcheckout ...' then perhaps making the packaging into a single file
> so that it can be copy/pasted from a webpage might not be solving the
> correct problem.
AUR users are expected to be able to take care of themselves.
If the users cannot even solve the error from "apt-get source"
or "debcheckout", why should they even try a "recipe-only" (or
packaging-script-only, source-only, whatever) way to build or
install something?
Reply to: