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

Re: Packaging sbt

Hi Emmanuel/people,
[Let me know if putting 2 mailings in Cc is making too much noise.]
I'm looking for a sponsor for a 1st dependency I submitted on @mentors (
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=855941 )
A few others should follow to bring a running sbt, but I'd like to show
a first real package and have your feedback before spamming other RFS.
Thanks for reading,


On Fri, 9 Dec 2016 10:24:06 +0100, Frederic Bonnard <frediz@linux.vnet.ibm.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 8 Dec 2016 23:16:52 +0100, Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org> wrote:
> > Le 18/11/2016 à 14:41, Frederic Bonnard a écrit :
> > 
> > Hi Frederic,
> > 
> > > There is much  work to finalize this  if that is ok,  but indeed, before
> > > continuing I'd like to know if I'm on the good path.
> > 
> > This looks like a valid approach. Did you use Scala 2.10 or 2.11 for
> > compiling SBT?
> I used scala 2.11 as it's the one available in unstable.
> > If you have a working SBT package I suggest uploading it
> > now to experimental/non-free, this will enable others to jump in and
> > help with the dependencies.
> Well, that's where I'm unsure.
> I packaged in a functional manner all the sbt components I listed above,
> meaning, that it would need further work (on control/copyright/...etc files).
> This was a POC and functionally speaking, that seems to work.
> Now if the approach I followed is valid according to Debian policy, I'll
> do things properly to push sbt and that minimal set of dependencies in experimental.
> I don't think it would be ok to do a binary upload. My idea was to do a
> full clean source upload, right ?
> If so, I'll focus on the coming days/weeks to provide all this.
> F.

Attachment: pgpQ192Xmv1Yc.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: