Re: RFS: codelite
> Hi George,
Hi,
> 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.
That is something I don't really understand, if not done for fun of course ;-)
Overwhelmed developers usually do not change their tools lightly. Let's put it
that way: how is codelite better than geany wrt your goals (I don't really buy
the `mood' argument;-), we are looking for significant differences here?
> I'm not
> actually familiar with Code::Blocks, but I do feel that it would be nice
Roughly Code::Blocks resembles MSVC face and look, and in my humble opinion
intentionally targets that user base. Nothing wrong with that of course.
> 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.
I'm afraid that if we go that way, we could flood the Debian archive even more
with lots of large and hard to maintain packages which tend to be neglected in
not so distant future.
> Picking one would probably create
> unnecessary hostility between the two IDEs' communities.
... or instead of provoking hostility this could help competition between
these alternatives. I really do like competition and multiple alternatives to
choose from, however these packages are large and complex and would probably
consume a lot of maintainers time while fighting the bug log, therefore I see
nothing wrong to apply Occam razor when selecting amongst such expensive
alternatives, maintenance-wise.
> 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
That is a very good summary, indeed, but for the time being I saw much more
users of codeblocks. This is not that I'm against codelite, it is just that
I'm looking hard for a good way to invest the effort, maintenance-wise.
> 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.
Sure, that is fine. Let's see when I can find some time to look at it more
closely. Meanwhile, engaging more reviewers would be very nice, in fact.
> Thanks for your time and attention! :-)
Welcome.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: