Just to echo Josh Suereth's post, it's important for my work to have
an nice apt repository that we can use to install the most recent sbt.
While it would be nice for the default debian package to be up to
date, a community maintained PPA is fine -- and I'd be happy to help
work on it.To that point -- *is* there a current PPA with sbt that's usable?
--j
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I stated before, I feel requiring SBT to build without itself is like
> trying to build Debian without GCC. Scala takes huge pride in
> bootstrapping and dogfooding. We eat our own dogfood, use our own tools,
> walk in our own destructive wake. I feel the pain of SBT as much as anyone
> else, because I have to use it every day when developing SBT related things.
>
> I'm sad to hear no future work will be done on official debian packages.
> However, I strongly feel scalac + sbt are two tools that should be able to
> dogfood using previous binaries. Why should we support two builds if one is
> good enough? If debian developers wish to support a make build for SBT,
> that's great. I'd prefer to make use of SBT when developing SBT. I'm
> pretty hazy on why there's any reason on why SBT cannot use itself to build
> itself for debian, redhat, macosx or any other platform.
>
> If necessary, I will provide my own apt repository, signed and validated,
> but built entirely with SBT to ensure we have a good story on debian. If
> the debian community wants us to have a make build and is willing to
> create/maintain it for SBT to be in 'core' debian, that's wonderful.
> Otherwise, I'll make sure there's a nice apt repository out there, built
> with sbt, for sbt.
>
> - Josh
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 07:02, Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > since I've been asked: I'm currently writing my bachelor thesis and
>> > won't
>> > continue working on SBT Debian packaging until after easter holidays.
>> >
>> > However in general I'd strongly suggest that packaging of SBT for a
>> > distribution is only continued, if upstream can be convinced to support
>> > a
>> > build path without a previous SBT binary, e.g.:
>> >
>> > 1. build a minimal SBT without SBT
>> > 2. build the full SBT with the minimal SBT from 1.
>> >
>> > I spent a full week to compile SBT without SBT (and learning more about
>> > Scala
>> > and SBT). Any third party scripts to bootstrap SBT could break at any
>> > time and
>> > require a lot of work to fix, if upstream does not support this build
>> > strategy.
>> >
>> > "Initial attempt to support build without sbt":
>> > https://github.com/harrah/xsbt/pull/308
>>
>> I'm not quite understanding the issue here. What is the policy in
>> question that is giving you trouble?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel C. Sobral
>>
>> I travel to the future all the time.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "simple-build-tool" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com .
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> simple-build-tool+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/simple-build-tool?hl=en .
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "simple-build-tool" group.
> To post to this group, send email to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com .
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> simple-build-tool+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com .
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/simple-build-tool?hl=en .