On 2012-11-14 19:20, John Colvin wrote:

> Debian testing is a rolling distribution, so it is always in an unstable
> state. Debian stable is, as it says, stable. To answer your question,
> just look at what debain version the particular ubuntu LTS version is
> based on.

Good point, how can I do that?

> To be honest, unless you're going to package all your dependancies along
> with the download, then you have to go down one of two routes: source
> distribution with a nice simple build procedure or making packages for
> the main distributions. I would recommend doing both.

I do provide source distribution. Not much of distribution, it's always available on Github. But I have one tool, DVM, which is a tool for installing D compilers and it's also written in D. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg-problem. Sure you can get D compiler in other ways. But I think this tool in particular is very convenient to have available as a pre-built executable.

A read a bit about creating packages for Debian, it seemed complicated and that I need to use stupid tools like Make. I hate Make.

> Look at it this way: the sort of people who aren't using a debian or
> fedora based distro aren't going to be phased by building from source
> (as a matter of fact they might prefer it).
> If you provide packages for debian and fedora and a source distribution
> as a fallback then you've covered the vast majority of your bases,
> allowing less advanced users to use package managers and letting the
> wild-west fringe distro people do whatever they want.


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

Jacob Carlborg wrote:

> On 2012-11-14 19:20, John Colvin wrote:
> 
>> Debian testing is a rolling distribution, so it is always in an unstable state. Debian stable is, as it says, stable. To answer your question, just look at what debain version the particular ubuntu LTS version is based on.
> 
> Good point, how can I do that?

Ubuntu versions are not based on Debian _releases_. Ubuntu has an ever repeating development circle of half a year. At the beginning of the circle they take a snapshot of Debian unstable[1] and in the next months they mold this snapshot in an ubuntu release.

[1] http://www.debian.org/releases

To answer your question: There might be moments, directly after the release
of a Debian stable version, when Ubuntu LTS is older then Debian. And after
an LTS release the current Debian stable is surely older.

>> To be honest, unless you're going to package all your dependancies along with the download, then you have to go down one of two routes: source distribution with a nice simple build procedure or making packages for the main distributions. I would recommend doing both.
> 
> I do provide source distribution. Not much of distribution, it's always available on Github. But I have one tool, DVM, which is a tool for installing D compilers and it's also written in D. It's a bit of a chicken-and-egg-problem. Sure you can get D compiler in other ways. But I think this tool in particular is very convenient to have available as a pre-built executable.
> 
> A read a bit about creating packages for Debian, it seemed complicated and that I need to use stupid tools like Make. I hate Make.

You're right about make. However the Makefiles that one needs today for Debian packages are so trivial that it's not worth to worry about it. The most basic debian/rules (which is a Makefile) looks like:

               #!/usr/bin/make -f
               %:
                       dh $@

You only need to add additional targets if you want to override default actions. In that case you usually add simple targets with a few lines.

We could switch from Makefiles to something else but it's simply not worth the effort.

But after all you don't need to do the Debian packaging yourself. It's even a bit infamous if upstream is also the maintainer of the Debian package for different reasons. Just be a good upstream[2] and find a Debian maintainer who cares about your software. The same thing for Fedora.

[2] wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide

Regards, Thomas Koch

On 2012-11-15 08:51, Thomas Koch wrote:

> You're right about make. However the Makefiles that one needs today for
> Debian packages are so trivial that it's not worth to worry about it. The
> most basic debian/rules (which is a Makefile) looks like:
>
>                 #!/usr/bin/make -f
>                 %:
>                         dh $@
>
> You only need to add additional targets if you want to override default
> actions. In that case you usually add simple targets with a few lines.
>
> We could switch from Makefiles to something else but it's simply not worth
> the effort.

Well, I simply don't think Makefiles are worth the effort.

> But after all you don't need to do the Debian packaging yourself. It's even
> a bit infamous if upstream is also the maintainer of the Debian package for
> different reasons. Just be a good upstream[2] and find a Debian maintainer
> who cares about your software. The same thing for Fedora.

It's not thinking about making the actual Debian package, I was more thinking of building the actual software.

> [2] wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide

I've read that page and from my understanding they prefer to use "make":

"Please don't use SCons"
"Using waf as build system is discouraged"


-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:35 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: […]
> > [2] wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide
> 
> I've read that page and from my understanding they prefer to use "make":
> 
> "Please don't use SCons"
> "Using waf as build system is discouraged"

Comments made by people who are steeped in Autoconf/Automake and haven't actually used more modern systems such as SCons or Waf.

The comments on the website are almost, but not quite, totally wrong on all important points.
-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Russel Winder wrote:

> On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 10:35 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: […]
>> > [2] wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide
>> 
>> I've read that page and from my understanding they prefer to use "make":
>> 
>> "Please don't use SCons"
>> "Using waf as build system is discouraged"
> 
> Comments made by people who are steeped in Autoconf/Automake and haven't actually used more modern systems such as SCons or Waf.
> 
> The comments on the website are almost, but not quite, totally wrong on all important points.
The "website" is a wiki site edited by many people over a longer time period. If you found points you disagree with I'd love to see a comment added.

I for example don't know either SCons or Waf. Maybe the information in our UpstreamGuide is not up to date anymore.

Have you found more issues with the text? It would be interesting for us to listen to the opinions of non-debian members.

Regards, Thomas Koch

On 2012-11-15 17:23, Russel Winder wrote:

> Comments made by people who are steeped in Autoconf/Automake and haven't
> actually used more modern systems such as SCons or Waf.
>
> The comments on the website are almost, but not quite, totally wrong on
> all important points.

I'm not saying that they're right or wrong. I'm saying that they're there and it's obviously someones opinion. It also indicates that something that doesn't use Makefiles is not accepted or harder to get accepted.

-- 
/Jacob Carlborg

[[I suspect this is getting way off-topic for this list, so if instructed to take it elsewhere will be happy to do so as long as elsewhere is defined.]]

On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 17:52 +0100, Thomas Koch wrote:
[…]
> The "website" is a wiki site edited by many people over a longer time period. If you found points you disagree with I'd love to see a comment added.

"Please don't use SCons: we will have to re-implement many standard features of autoconf/automake, including DESTDIR, out of tree builds, cleaning and more."

This just shows that the Debian system is so rooted in Autoconf/Automake that the mindset is to oppose anything that isn't.  SCons supports out of tree builds far better than Autoconf/Automake.  SCons supports cleaning far better than Autoconf/Automake, just differently. What is this "more"? Why is DESTDIR so important? SCons has good ways of doing installation, just differently.

The problem here is that Debian gives no guidance to people who want to use SCons how to write their SCons builds to be harmonious with the Debian way of doing things. Instead the Debian system says "we are Autoconf/Autotools, so don't use SCons".


"Using waf as build system is discouraged. One of the reasons is the recommendation to ship a waf executable in every single package using it, instead of using a system wide one. Also note that just shipping the waf executable (which contains a binary blob) is considered to be not complient with the Debian Free Software guidelines by the FTP Team. Please see #645190 and UnpackWaf for more details on the issue and how to avoid it, if you have to use waf."

It is true that Thomas pushes the "carry the build system with the project" line. In fact Gradle has done something along these lines as well. Indeed SCons supports this way of working. In a global context, it is a very good idea, even if it is conflict with the Debian way of working.  But like SCons, Waf works very well with an installed Waf, the project supplied Waf can be ignored.  The Waf executable is not a binary blob really, it is just an encoded source distribution which has to be decoded. If the people had investigated properly this comment would just not have been made. Actually the comments on the indicated issue explain this very clearly.  Sadly other comments wilfully misrepresent the status quo.

> I for example don't know either SCons or Waf. Maybe the information in our UpstreamGuide is not up to date anymore.

To be honest, the comments never were reasonable, they were founded on prejudice and lack of research.  If the instructions were "We like Autotools/Automake and are not prepared to work with anything else." it would be more acceptable as being opinionated, honest, and a statement to people how Debian worked. This would be far more acceptable/better than the FUD that is there.

> Have you found more issues with the text? It would be interesting for us to listen to the opinions of non-debian members.

I am a Debian Unstable user and fan. I hate Autotools/Automake. Therefore I do not get involved in building packages for Debian, I am just a freeloading user, total fretard ;-) I have though been known to build packages and put them in my own repository. I'm sometimes selfish like that :-)

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

On Thu, 2012-11-15 at 20:42 +0100, Jacob Carlborg wrote: […]
> I'm not saying that they're right or wrong. I'm saying that they're there and it's obviously someones opinion. It also indicates that something that doesn't use Makefiles is not accepted or harder to get accepted.

I just submitted a email on this which I think answers the point. I worry that it is way off-topic for this list though. The summary is that Debian is Autotools/Automake focussed and any other build is a problem for them. I think this is sad, but it is Debian's privilege to be dictatorial on this for the Debian repository.

-- 
Russel. ============================================================================= Dr Russel Winder      t: +44 20 7585 2200   voip: sip:russel.winder@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road    m: +44 7770 465 077   xmpp: russel@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK   w: www.russel.org.uk  skype: russel_winder

Russel Winder wrote:

> [[I suspect this is getting way off-topic for this list, so if instructed to take it elsewhere will be happy to do so as long as elsewhere is defined.]]

I added your comments and a remark about the role of make in Debian: http://wiki.debian.org/UpstreamGuide?action=diff&rev1=58&rev2=59

I'd invite you to continue this discussion on debian-devel@lists.debian.org (no subscription required).

The UpstreamGuide is an important document for the "public relations" of Debian, so I'd like to get it right.

Regards, Thomas Koch