Re: ROOT 5.08/00 (development version) for sarge on i386
> Hi all,
>
> On 12/23/05, Christian Holm Christensen <cholm@nbi.dk> wrote:
>
>> Richards packages has some good things, in that it makes development
>> packages for some of the add-ons, which I do not. That's on my TODO
>> list. We (Kevin McCarthy and I, and to some extent the ROOT team) has
>> put some effort into letting ROOT use DFSG-free TTF files, allowing ROOT
>> to go into `main' rather than `contrib' or even `non-free'. Also, I've
>> tried to do all sorts of system integration, from desktop entries, to
>> services.
>>
>> On mirror.phy.bnl.gov, we try to provide debs for stable and unstable,
>> for i386 and amd64.
>>
>> I don't want to go into religious wars on this, but perhaps we could
>> agree to focus our effort a bit here.
>
> I think this is an excellent idea -- it could contribute to user
> confusion if there continue to be two sets of somewhat incompatible
> .debs out there, especially now that both are targeted at ROOT 5.x.
> Really the best features of both efforts should be pooled. I
> apologize that I'm not sure of what are the biggest obstacles to such
> a merger. "Religious wars" makes it sound like a difference in
> philosophy. Even so, could it help if we set up a CVS repository on
> alioth or something that would make it easier for people to combine
> work?
>
Any confusion that may arise out there is solved by putting
ROOT into debian itself. To agree on that would be a big step.
A CVS repository on alioth would certainly be a step towards that
end.
The term "Religious wars" is inappropiate to this list. Nevertheless I
agree there are differeces in how the two packagings are tackled. One
is very conventional, with a static debian/ directory, the other is
automated, creating a debian/ directory on the fly (very elegant but
not always successful).
Ricardo
Reply to: