Hi.
I saw that Marguerite has added another two Debian packages to the "deb" openSUSE package. As a user of and contributor to that package, may I suggest that we stop that (and instead do the opposite, split the package)?
I don't know what the historic reasons were for collecting multiple independent source packages in one RPM. But by now this is a very big and complicated spec file which makes maintenance somewhat hard, especially when multiple people are working on it. It also makes it hard to use parts of the packaging for other purposes (e.g. Fedora already has a dpkg package, but no debhelper or devscripts package. The current deb package doesn't work for Fedora and adapting it would make the spec file even bigger [it needs overrides for the automatic perl dependencies and other changes])
If there is no opposition I would volunteer to do all the work of splitting the deb package in its components and submit them to Factory (Probably something that would be targeted for 12.3, not 12.2?).
Opinions? Would it make sense to file a bug about this? Or a fate entry?
Gruesse,
Le dimanche 24 juin 2012, à 18:41 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld a écrit :
Hi.
I saw that Marguerite has added another two Debian packages to the "deb" openSUSE package. As a user of and contributor to that package, may I suggest that we stop that (and instead do the opposite, split the package)?
I don't know what the historic reasons were for collecting multiple independent source packages in one RPM. But by now this is a very big and complicated spec file which makes maintenance somewhat hard, especially when multiple people are working on it. It also makes it hard to use parts of the packaging for other purposes (e.g. Fedora already has a dpkg package, but no debhelper or devscripts package. The current deb package doesn't work for Fedora and adapting it would make the spec file even bigger [it needs overrides for the automatic perl dependencies and other changes])
If there is no opposition I would volunteer to do all the work of splitting the deb package in its components and submit them to Factory (Probably something that would be targeted for 12.3, not 12.2?).
Opinions? Would it make sense to file a bug about this? Or a fate entry?
This makes sense to me: multiple tarballs in one source package is generally a bad idea, as it makes it harder to maintain the result.
So unless the maintainer says "no", just go ahead and do it, I'd say :-)
Vincent
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 08:19:17AM +0200, Vincent Untz wrote:
Le dimanche 24 juin 2012, à 18:41 +0200, Frank Lichtenheld a écrit :
Hi.
I saw that Marguerite has added another two Debian packages to the "deb" openSUSE package. As a user of and contributor to that package, may I suggest that we stop that (and instead do the opposite, split the package)?
I don't know what the historic reasons were for collecting multiple independent source packages in one RPM. But by now this is a very big and complicated spec file which makes maintenance somewhat hard, especially when multiple people are working on it. It also makes it hard to use parts of the packaging for other purposes (e.g. Fedora already has a dpkg package, but no debhelper or devscripts package. The current deb package doesn't work for Fedora and adapting it would make the spec file even bigger [it needs overrides for the automatic perl dependencies and other changes])
If there is no opposition I would volunteer to do all the work of splitting the deb package in its components and submit them to Factory (Probably something that would be targeted for 12.3, not 12.2?).
Opinions? Would it make sense to file a bug about this? Or a fate entry?
This makes sense to me: multiple tarballs in one source package is generally a bad idea, as it makes it harder to maintain the result.
So unless the maintainer says "no", just go ahead and do it, I'd say :-)
Vincent
Hallo,
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Just do not touch update-alternatives package, even if it's quite inconvenient, this needs to be packages in separate spec to avoid huge build loops in Factory.
Regards Michal Vyskocil
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz wrote:
Hallo,
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Just do not touch update-alternatives package, even if it's quite inconvenient, this needs to be packages in separate spec to avoid huge build loops in Factory.
Regards Michal Vyskocil
sounds good to me.
I added those two packages (dh-make, dh-autoreconf) because newbies can't do anything about .deb without them. (Actually newbies still can't do anything about .deb, because Depends can't be fulfilled under an RPM-based distro. But anyway it will help .deb developers.)
I even packaged dpkg, and debhelper in my home:MargueriteSu:debian, then I found there's an official package called deb, so I deleted my packages and updated the official one.
I think most of our users also feel confused they have to install deb package instead of dpkg/debhelper, because no one tends to read our packaging wiki first if he already tried packaging once on Debian/Ubuntu.
Why not bind update-alternative and dpkg together, instead of deb? When I worked on that deb package, I saw those are actually built together.
Greetings,
Marguerite
2012/6/25 Marguerite Su i@marguerite.su:
On Mon, Jun 25, 2012 at 3:22 PM, Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz wrote:
Just do not touch update-alternatives package, even if it's quite inconvenient, this needs to be packages in separate spec to avoid huge build loops in Factory.
[...]
I think most of our users also feel confused they have to install deb package instead of dpkg/debhelper, because no one tends to read our packaging wiki first if he already tried packaging once on Debian/Ubuntu.
Although that is somewhat mitigated by the fact that deb provides dpkg and debhelper. So a "zypper install dpkg" should already do the right thing.
Why not bind update-alternative and dpkg together, instead of deb? When I worked on that deb package, I saw those are actually built together.
See the note of Michal (cited at the top of this mail): update-alternatives is packaged separately so that it can be built early in a bootstrap cycle. dpkg has quite huge lists of BuildRequires, some of which might require update-alternatives.
Gruesse,
2012/6/25 Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz:
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Thanks, will start to work on it.
Just do not touch update-alternatives package, even if it's quite inconvenient, this needs to be packages in separate spec to avoid huge build loops in Factory.
ACK.
Gruesse,
2012/6/25 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz:
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Thanks, will start to work on it.
My progress can be followed in home:flichtenheld:deb-split
I wonder what a suitable devel project would be for those. deb is in system:packagemanager but except maybe for dpkg itself that doesn't really feel right. Maybe a new devel:tools:debian project? I could also move my deboostrap and pbuilder packages in there.
Gruesse,
On Tuesday 2012-06-26 23:14, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
2012/6/25 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz:
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Thanks, will start to work on it.
My progress can be followed in home:flichtenheld:deb-split
I wonder what a suitable devel project would be for those. deb is in system:packagemanager but except maybe for dpkg itself that doesn't really feel right. Maybe a new devel:tools:debian project? I could also move my deboostrap and pbuilder packages in there.
Is there any use for deb/debhelper outside of package management? :) IMHO we have too many repositories already, so putting all of them into system:packagemanager looks ok. Maybe zypp* should also move there.
2012/6/26 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz:
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Thanks, will start to work on it.
My progress can be followed in home:flichtenheld:deb-split
First version of the split is ready for use and submitted to system:packagemanager.
Gruesse,
2012/6/26 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz:
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Thanks, will start to work on it.
My progress can be followed in home:flichtenheld:deb-split
Hi.
Since it has been some time, a short status update on this. All the packages (dpkg, debhelper, devscripts, dh-make, dh-autoreconf) are now available in system:packagemanager. I plan to start submitting them to Factory in the next days.
Gruesse,
On Mon, Oct 01, 2012 at 11:12:06PM +0200, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
2012/6/26 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz:
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Thanks, will start to work on it.
My progress can be followed in home:flichtenheld:deb-split
Hi.
Since it has been some time, a short status update on this. All the packages (dpkg, debhelper, devscripts, dh-make, dh-autoreconf) are now available in system:packagemanager. I plan to start submitting them to Factory in the next days.
Hi Frank,
nice job, thanks for that!
Regards Michal Vyskocil
2012/10/1 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/26 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Frank Lichtenheld frank@lichtenheld.de:
2012/6/25 Michal Vyskocil mvyskocil@suse.cz:
this sounds like a good idea - +1 from me.
Thanks, will start to work on it.
My progress can be followed in home:flichtenheld:deb-split
Hi.
Since it has been some time, a short status update on this. All the packages (dpkg, debhelper, devscripts, dh-make, dh-autoreconf) are now available in system:packagemanager. I plan to start submitting them to Factory in the next days.
I've started submitting the packages to Factory, but devscripts doesn't build in the devel project because of "have choice for dpkg = 1.16.8 needed by dpkg-devel: dpkg deb". Could someone with rights to the system:packagemanager project please add a "Prefer: dpkg" to the project config? That would be appreciated.
Gruesse, Frank
-
Frank Lichtenheld -
Jan Engelhardt -
Marguerite Su -
Michal Vyskocil -
Vincent Untz