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

Re: A simpler cabal-debian



I would be a little sad to see the parsing of a debianization go, though I'm not sure I use that feature in real life. Today I am going to take a stab at the second option (making it do what we want it to do) and if that doesn't work I will consider the first option (simplified cabal-debian.)  I have a feeling that as I work on it I might end up leaning towards the first option even if I am able to fix the copyright inputting.  Splitting the package in two could be the best of both options.

On Wed, Nov 26, 2014 at 1:02 AM, Joachim Breitner <nomeata@debian.org> wrote:
Hi David,

the progress of making cabal-debian the default tool for creating new
Debian packages has stalled. The particular issue at hand is
https://github.com/ddssff/cabal-debian/issues/7
where I could not make it work with --compare, partly due to lack of
understanding of cabal-debian’s internal design.

It seems that some of the complexity causing this slow down is due to
features like reading data from a debian/ directory, e.g. in order to
merge or compare. As nice as it is to have these things – for our uses
we don’t need that. Especially as there is now the general "debdry"
wrapper (https://packages.debian.org/sid/debdry) which can provide the
functionality of adjusting the output of auto-generated packaging
directories.

I think I would already work with a cabal-debian-like tool if I had a
simple one-way
"cabal + command line flags + global information → debian/" conversion
tool that would be much simpler to hack on.

So I see a few ways forward:
      * It turns out that you also don’t need anything else besides this
        feature. We can take cabal-debian and simplify it greatly.
      * You need the advanced features, and you (or some else of course)
        figure out how to still make it do what we want it to do.
      * It makes sense for fork or rewrite the tool
        (cabal-debian-simple, cabal-debian-official, cabal-debian-DHG or
        whatever), fully suited for our needs.

What’s your opinion on this?

Greetings,
Joachim

--
Joachim "nomeata" Breitner
Debian Developer
  nomeata@debian.org | ICQ# 74513189 | GPG-Keyid: F0FBF51F
  JID: nomeata@joachim-breitner.de | http://people.debian.org/~nomeata



Reply to: