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

Re: Git migration


Am Montag, den 13.07.2015, 23:18 +0300 schrieb Dmitry Bogatov:

> One day I tried to use `mass-upgrade.sh' and failed. To fight through
> errors, I had to read source of script, then man page of another dpkg-*
> tool, rinse and repeat. It is cathedral.

I have not heard of your problems. How can I improve the tools or the
documentation if I have to assume none else uses these scripts besides

Also note that the tag.pl and what-to-build.pl are quick hacks to get
started, not finished work, and I welcome anyone to improve or –
probably better – rewrite them.

> So I belive that packaging out scripts will force us to write them more
> newbie-friendly.

Of course newbie-friendlyness is nice, but extra work is not,
especially if it is forced upon us.

> > Also, if the tools live in the repo, they can find the path to the
> > packages using $(dirname $0) :-)
> Little problem. Just introduce something like DHG_PACKAGES_ROOT and
> set it in your .shellrc.

Possible, but not very user friendly either.

How are these scripts different from test-packages.pl in the package
-plan repository? If the scripts are tied to the data, I don’t see why
they should be shipped separately. And what would be the point of
having these scripts in a Debian stable release?

But as always: If someone wants to do the work, he is welcome to.

> Also, I have idea, and even some steps of reimplementation out
> haskell-devscripts via debhelper
> 	~kaction-guest/public_git/dh-haskell.git
> Why? Debhelper provides library that implements things, like 
> `substvar',
> that we reimplement currently with grep and sed. In fact, main logic
> currently is in Dh_Haskell.sh. Perl may be not the cleanest language
> ever, but it is general-purpose one, unlike shell. Opinions?

Very nice! I was hoping someone would eventually come along and free us
from the historically grown mess that we are using.

How would a debian/rules for a package using this look like?

Are you trying to make it produce identical binaries? That would be
good, because it would allow us to rebuild everything with dh-haskell
and compare the resulting binaries; if they do not differ we can switch
to dh-haskell.

Are you going to attend DebConf or DebCamp? Would be a great
opportunity to work on these issues.

(I guess this discussion deserves a separate thread from the
DHG_Packages discussion.)


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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: