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

Re: RFS: codelite

Hi George,

On Sunday 16,August,2009 10:30 PM, George Danchev wrote:
> [...]
> I have some questions which might need a broader discussion, before we proceed 
> (I don't place any burden on you to answer them, of course, but your opinion 
> would be appreciated as well): 
> It seems like there is a great part of users who are not so happy with the 
> current C/C++ IDE available in Debian, hence they are packaging more and more 
> C/C++ IDE's, like codelite and codeblocks [1], which are both already 
> available in Ubuntu (can't comment on their quality since I've never used them 
> [2]). Packaging and _properly maintaining_ such large and complex code bases 
> is a tremendous effort, since amongst other things they tend to embed almost 
> any kind of libraries and external projects (except libc;-) to make their life 
> "easier". Therefore having a clear view on the following would probably safe 
> people's time checking unneeded prospective packages and would hopefully add 
> quality to existing ones:
> Do we really need more C/C++ IDE's?
> Which one: a) codelite, b) codeblocks, c) both, d) other?
> (a side note: cooperating with Ubuntu's maintainers seems like a win-win 
> situation to me).
I actually use a series of IDEs/editors hopping from one to another
depending on my mood or purpose: emacs, geany, codelite. I'm not
actually familiar with Code::Blocks, but I do feel that it would be nice
to have all of them in Debian (and Ubuntu) to provide more choice to the
end-user. There are bound to be those not satisfied with Code::Blocks
and love CodeLite[1], and vice versa. Picking one would probably create
unnecessary hostility between the two IDEs' communities.

By the way, I am the Ubuntu maintainer for CodeLite. I got it into
Ubuntu via Revu during my early days of packaging (it was my first from
scratch) before someone (Iain Lane iirc) convinced me that it's better
to get packages into Debian and let them be synced into Ubuntu.
> [1] ITP: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=304570
> (lots of interested users, but nothing yet)
> [2] Jen Lody's unofficial packages, I saw some of my colleagues to use happily: 
> http://apt.jenslody.de/
> P.S. and yes, I'm not a fan Eclipse CDT nor I have any feeling with MSVC 
> though I use it daily.

[1] http://krnjevic.com/wp/?p=96

P.S. If/When you do review the rest of the package, please note that the
get-orig-source rule is currently failing miserably due to the whole
sf.net uscan breakage. You'll have to download the tarball first, rename
it to codelite_<VERSION>.orig.tar.gz and then use this:

debian/rules get-orig-source VERSION=<VERSION> USCAN=echo
(Overriding USCAN=echo is to disable all invocations of uscan)

Also, if you upload this package, please use the tarball I've uploaded
into mentors.debian.net, as that's the same one that's used in Ubuntu's
CodeLite package. If you regenerate the dfsg tarball and use that
instead, there will be tarball mismatch issues.

Thanks for your time and attention! :-)

Kind regards,
Chow Loong Jin

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Reply to: