Re: RFS: debian-builder (updated package)
Yes you are absolutely right that how many Debain should handle it. As
per my knowledge i have good understanding of debian build process
that is why i have adopted this package.
Yes i do understand that maintaining an build packages is much harder
then other and i have tried to start that because i want to do.
I have knowledge of other packages like apt ,quilt which you were
taking about But my main purpose of to take a package in always good
I really do understand that your Debian System knowledge will be much
better then mine and if you think that there are good build packages
are available and we don't need this .I will go ahead then raise a
request for removing from Debian .(or if you want you can raise it ).
Need mode guidance to learn from mentors.
kind to see your mail soon.
On 2/10/08, Neil Williams <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Sun, 2008-02-10 at 02:35 +0530, Deepak Tripathi wrote:
> > On Feb 9, 2008 11:58 PM, Neil Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > On Sat, 09 Feb 2008 15:26:48 +0530
> > Deepak Tripathi <email@example.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
E3 71V3 8Y C063 (We Live By Code)