Re: libdbi maintainership needs help
2011/7/13 Thomas Goirand <thomas@goirand.fr>:
> 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.
Hi! Sorry but I disagree, in my opinion the simplest is the easiest way.
But I will not enter further into this discussion. I will try to fix
bugs and I will fix them I will send you patches.
I attach a patch debdiff for #633484, I tried it with all versions
mentioned in bug from snapshot.debian.org and it works fine. Also I
tried to upgrade from squeeze and it works fine too.
I attach the debdiff to the bug too.
Regards,
>> 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
>
--
Angel Abad
angelabad@gmail.com | angelabad@ubuntu.com | angelabad@fsfe.org
http://www.pastelero.net
FPR: EBF6 080D 59D4 008A DF47 00D4 098D AE47 EE3B C279
Reply to: