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

Re: RFS: debian-builder (updated package)



On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 02:35 +0530, Deepak Tripathi wrote:
> On Feb 9, 2008 11:58 PM, Neil Williams <codehelp@debian.org> wrote:
>         On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:26:48 +0530
>         Deepak Tripathi <apenguinlinux@gmail.com> wrote:
>         
>         > Dear mentors,
>         >
>         > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1.8
>         > of my package "debian-builder".
>         >
>         > It builds these binary packages:
>         > debian-builder - Rebuild Debian packages from source code
>         
>         
>         Why is this worth having in Debian? (What's wrong with apt-get
>         -b or
>         the half-dozen other ways of building a source package?)
> Hi ,
> Nothing is wrong with apt-get -b "BUT"   It is not designed to enhance
> your installation
>  by producing optimized binaries, however this may be achieved  with
> the aid of companion packages such as 'pentium-builder' or
> 'athlon-builder'.
>  The prime purpose of this package is to ease the testing of  compiler
> patches such as the Stack Smashing Protection patch  available from
> IBM.

Please post the long description - this sounds like a very specialised
package that should indicate this in the description if not in the
package name.

debian-builder appears to be far too generic - there would be no reason
to rebuild more than a few packages with such a tool IMHO.

>         
>         How many more (vanity) build systems must we have????
> there are many and besically it depends how the community uses them,. 

No, it is how many Debian should support. There is a great deal of
controversy about build systems right now and you have not yet given any
convincing evidence of why this one should be added.

The problem with all build systems is that they start out as "useful for
a few problems" but soon they are adopted for packages outside that
remit which then depend on them and from which maintainers do not want
to move.

What is the role for this package with regard to packages to be uploaded
to Debian? What differences does your build system introduce that would
cause the binaries to differ from those inspected by the security team?
Why not simply use quilt or some other patch system and an existing
build tool - script it in shell if necessary.

Are you aware of the issues with introducing a new build tool? What are
your answers for the problems currently being discussed in Debian around
such build tools, patch systems and source package changes with regard
to your package?

A build tool is not an ordinary package. You need to work a lot harder
(now and forever more) to show that you can maintain this package "in
the round" and improve it to meet future changes as-yet-unknown.

I'd be surprised if this is achievable without being part of the
upstream team for this package.

-- 


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


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


Reply to: