Re: libdbi maintainership needs help
On 07/13/2011 11:05 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
> Excerpts from Thomas Goirand's message of Wed Jul 13 06:06:36 -0700 2011:
>> On 07/13/2011 08:00 PM, Clint Byrum wrote:
>>> I just tried building the 0.8.4-5 package with minimal rules and 3.0 quilt,
>>> and it built with a couple of extra files (.install files to put the files
>>> in the right place). It also uses dh_autoreconf successfully. See attached
>>> patch.
>>
>> Why did you remove my use of a build folder? It was working perfectly!
>
> Why do you feel a need to use a build folder?
Because that's the most easy way to not touch any files of upstream, and
because it did work perfectly. Because dh_autoreconf has proven to be
failing in many cases, and that my system has no way break. Note that
this is the type of build system that many packages in Debian are using.
For example: Xen, the kernel, and so on.
>> You are also removing the patch that does:
>>
>> - CFLAGS="-O20 -ffast-math -D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char
>> std=gnu99"
>> - PROFILE="-pg -g -O20 -ffast-math -D_REENTRANT
>> fsigned-char -std=gnu99";;
>> + CFLAGS="-D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char -std=gnu99"
>> + PROFILE="-pg -g -D_REENTRANT -fsigned-char std=gnu99";;
>>
>
> I renamed it. Its re-added later with .patch instead of .dpatch as it is
> no longer a dpatch, but a quilt patch.
With all the respect, I don't see why you are wasting your time changing
things that worked. If you want to take over the package completely, and
rewrite things from scratch, ok, but not now.
>> (and same for the configure) Why? It's 100% needed!!!
>>
>
> dh_autoreconf handles the config.sub/config.guess patches that you had
> embedded in the debian package.
This is a mistake in the Git manipulation, which I didn't have time to
fix. As these files are anyway overwritten by the build process which
takes them from /usr/share, I thought I would fix that later.
You could remove the diff easily. I just had no time to work on that.
> cd $(BUILD_DIR) && CFLAGS="$(CFLAGS)" ./configure --host=$(DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE) --build=$(DEB_BUILD_GNU_TYPE) --prefix=/usr --mandir=\$${prefix}/share/man --infodir=\$${prefix}/share/info
>
> I'm not sure what this does that debhelper does not do. The resulting
> .debs are *identical* as far as I can tell.
>
>> With what I did, dh_autoreconf isn't needed anymore. dh_autoreconf is
>> overly complicated, and it's nice to be able to avoid it.
>
> I disagree whole heartedly. dh_autoreconf is well tested and solves the
> exact problem that you are solving by manually patching files in the
> upstream portion of the package.
Again, if you are talking about the config.{sub,guess}, it's just that I
had no time to fix an issue that appeared when not using the build folder.
> The idea is to make the package more maintainable.
IMHO, you are doing the exact opposite thing here.
> The excellent
> stuff you did in debian/rules has been superseded by debhelper now.
What do you mean? Are you talking about dh short style? Eg:
%:
dh $@
???
If so, *NO*. It's not AT ALL superseded. Read the recent debian-mentor@
thread about it (search for Nitpicking). It's a different style, but
it's not deprecating the other one.
> libdbi doesn't seem to be special in any regard except the patch to the
> build flags which is appropriately in debian/patches. So why would you
> want to have such a long explicit rules file?
It's not simplifying to change something that has proven to be working,
especially when things are currently broken and I'm asking help to fix them.
> You have stated a few
> times that you don't have time for such things. I'm hoping to reduce
> the burden is all.
Don't. Just fix the RC bugs, nothing more, nothing less. You're not
reducing the burden, you are increasing it.
If you really want to help, write a minimalistic patch for both #599127
(in the Squeeze branch of the Git) and fix and test for #633484. Don't
do anything else, and don't write to me about another change. Also, have
a look why the postgress test suite doesn't work anymore for
libdbi-driver in SID.
> Take it or leave it
I leave it, because now isn't the time to change things. Now is the time
to fix the open RC bugs, and upload a package that works as other are
expecting, and also fix the issue in Debian stable. I regret to say it,
but having to write back to you about it wastes my (currently quite)
limited time. Sorry to be very direct here, I hope you don't take it
badly, as I enjoyed a lot the hacking we did together previously on libdbi.
> but this would also simplify merges and syncs with
> Ubuntu so I'm hoping you'll take it. :)
Feel free to do such changes *later*. :)
Also, I regret to say it: I wont care about Ubuntu anymore, I'm focusing
on Debian. I've learned it the hard way, but Debian isn't Ubuntu, and we
shouldn't accept such arguments, it's simply not a valid one.
Cheers,
Thomas
Reply to: