[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Complied into debs please (Python/Emacs packagers take note)



What is the point of pre-compiling C code before packaging it into
.debs?  If you can answer that, apply that answer to Python code.

Subverting the Debian package management system seems a bit odd for
a Debian package to do, yet this is the impression I get from each
Python package I install here.  (Emacs packages tend toward the same
stupidity, and this is why I try very hard to avoid installing python
or emacs packages on most of the machines I administer.)

Isn't the idea of precompiled binaries the reason for .deb packages in
the first place?  The compile-it-on-every-Debian-user's-box syndrome,
rather than doing the work of compiling it just the once by a Debian
developer (or buildd box) seems 180 degrees in opposition to the
rationale for binary .deb packages.  (Debian is no longer practical to
use on a slow machine if a daily upgrade can take over 24 hours to run.)

If I wanted to compile everything locally, I'd be running a *BSD or
Slackware, right?

Taking away the precompiled aspect of Debian is certainly not in keeping
with point 4 of the Social Contract.

dlocate /file/name/here   doesn't work for files generated in a
postinst, rather than included in the package itself.  Nor does dpkg -S,
nor do cruft and debsums.  Again this seems to run contrary to point 4 of
the Social Contract.  It certainly would be in the Users' best interest
to be able to detect tampering.  Please give dpkg awareness of all files
related to any given package.

-- 
Please (OpenPGP) encrypt all mail whenever possible. Request the following
Public Keys for Lazarus Long <lazarus@overdue.ddts.net>

  Type    Bits/KeyID    Fingerprint                   DSA KeyID: vvvv vvvv
ElGamal: 2048g/CCB09D64 8270 4B79 CB1E 433B 6214  64EB 9D58 28A9 E8B1 27F4
(old 2001 keys)
ElGamal: 2048g/215A8B4A F258 C2DD 7E9C DCEB E64F  82EC D4BB 3438 8B82 A392

Attachment: pgpyLx_QEcqiS.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: