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

Re: RFS: ustr



On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 14:46:00 +0100
Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> wrote:

> Neil Williams wrote:
> > On Tue, 30 Oct 2007 13:07:16 +0100
> > Bernd Zeimetz <bernd@bzed.de> wrote:
> > 
> >> Hi,
> >>
> >> first thing I can recommend: Don't use cdbs for that. That just doesn't
> >> work for building proper library packages.
> > 
> > Bunkum!!!
> 
> :)
> 
> > CDBS is fine for all packages if the maintainer chooses to use it.
> 
> Ok, let's not start a cdbs flamewar here

:-)

Emdebian means that I have to deal with *all* packaging methods and get
them all to cross-build their packages. CDBS is the easiest (because it
does all the work with simple tweaks that are reproducible in all other
CDBS packages). debhelper is seldom used alone and so those packages
are problematic because each one needs a customised solution. The few
packages that use dbs are relatively simple to cross build. The worst
are those that only use dpkg - too many customisations. Still, it's
going relatively well so far.

>, I'm probably way too annoyed
> by cdbs (except for very simple python packages).

The docs are the biggest hindrance in CDBS, sadly.
 
> As cdbs doesn't seem to take care of building the source twice, with and
> without -fPIC, so I have to handcraft a lot of stuff in the rules file
> anyway - then the sense of using cdbs is gone for me.

I haven't time to look into the specifics now but I think it can be
done. What you need is an example package. I'm not sure why you need to
build with and without -fPIC but if there is a good reason for your
package, there is probably already a package doing the same thing.

> > > Chances are good that a -dbg package would make more sense then this
> > > > debug library weirdness.
> 
> > And is soon to be mandated by policy.
> 
> I hope in a way which doesn't end up in a huge waste of space on every
> mirror.

-dbg is no waste of space. Getting sensible backtraces is far more
important.

Besides, it's only libraries, not applications. The real issue for
mirrors is when translations get split out into individual packages
along with the gconv data from glibc and the zoneinfo data from tzinfo.
Emdebian has to work this way and I've seen a ten fold increase in the
number of binary packages for the same number of source packages.
Something has to give. Secondary mirrors and secondary dpkg/apt cache
stores are likely.

-- 

Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpMia0X6ucoF.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: