kaih@khms.westfalen.de (Kai Henningsen) writes: > And when people tell you technical points where your proposal is flawed, > those are "knee-jerk reactions", "uninformed opinions", and "aesthetics"? > > Something is very wrong here. My fault. I was a bit stressed, and didn't take criticism very well. (I am still haven't seen a "deep" flaw in my proposal though) I guess I am more of computer geek than a "people person" - I tend to be a bit harsh when I don't agree with somebody's assertion. I must have picked up some of my bad attitude from my dad (he's a cop). :-) > > 3) What if the upstream source comes in multiple files? How do you > > propose changing dpkg-source to use pristine-sources for that? > > There's a quite obvious way to do that. Do we _want_ this, though? I do. I have some potential applications that absolutely require it. > There are two cases: original source that is just packed up in several > parts, and original source from completely different origins. > > In the first case, it could well be argued that this is a case of "weird > source packaging", and we actually want to repack those sources anyway. > (This is debatable, of course.) It goes against the purpose of pristine sources and verifiability. But dpkg-source could be adapted to handle it. > In the second case, this has some obvious problems. (For example, we now > have two different version numbers ...) With my proposed method, the src-deb-*.deb file can have different version numbers than any of the src-orig-*.deb files it depends upon. > > 4) Can you describe an algorithm for an auto-bootstrap compilation > > mechanism in detail? > > That's a completely unrelated problem. True. > > I've already demonstrated that my proposal can do all of these things. > > Actually, I don't think you have demonstrated 4. I believe I did outline an algorithm in a reply to Bruce on debian-devel. Of course, it ought to be written up in a nicer manner. > Besides, dpkg-source fulfills some other design criterions which your > proposal doesn't fulfill, and which, IMHO, are a lot more important. > > You might want to read the discussion when the current source format was > invented. It was on -devel, but I unfortunately don't remember when. > > It has all the arguments on why dpkg-source isn't built on top of dpkg, > for example; why using .tar.gz/.diff.gz/.dsc is the way to go, and so on. > And it did convince most people. This discussion happened before I started running Debian (June '96). Our mail archive only goes back to August '96. A quick grep through the archive mostly turns up messages talking about dpkg-source problems. My proposal does allow us to do things we want to do right now, whereas the dpkg-source enhancements are still vapourware. I just hope everybody realizes that. I also accept the fact that people may not want to use a working format, as they are holding out for something potentially better, or more familiar. (Microsoft has learned this lesson well) Anyways - I'm orphaning my proposal. I may write up a report and investigate some alternatives to dpkg for my own purposes (primarily for user-space problems) - but I'm not going to press the issue of changing the way Debian makes source packages. (That was never really my intention, anyways) Cheers, - Jim
Attachment:
pgpUpTw4hU1gV.pgp
Description: PGP signature