> > Sorry, I'm just coming in in the middle of this, but I second > > any motion to include a debian/ dirextory directory in the > > flac sources. > > > > In general the build scripts and control files in a debian/ > > directory are pretty static and don't change from version to > > version, with the exception of the changelog. To include them > > in an application's source generally involves very little > > overhead and maintenance. > > Speaking from personal experience, I can say that this is often > untrue. For > example, the flac package, which has gone through 6 fast-paced > upstream > releases (0.5 through 0.10), two of these (0.5 and 0.6) have involved > more than > one Debian revision (0.5-2 and 0.6-2). If the debian/ directory had > been > included in CVS and released with flac, its contents would have been > out of > date almost immediately. > ...Again, I'm inclined to agree with Matt here...> I am willing to consider the idea of including the debian/ directory > in flac > CVS (as opposed to my personal CVS) if Josh doesn't mind some > additional > tagging and branching, and the debian/ directory would be omitted > from the > official releases.Ha, I was just about to say "well OK, I'll put a debian/ in flac CVS if Matt is up to maintaining it." If both maintainers have to make such a concession it must not be the elegant way to go. I still think it makes sense to keep them separate beasts. Josh __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Spot the hottest trends in music, movies, and more. http://buzz.yahoo.com/
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 11:33:15AM -0700, Josh Coalson wrote:> > it's hard enough for the average user to find out how to compile > > source > > packages and checkout from CVS. The Ogg sources also includes a > > debian/ > > dir and it was much easier to build deb packages from this.Sorry, I'm just coming in in the middle of this, but I second any motion to include a debian/ dirextory directory in the flac sources. In general the build scripts and control files in a debian/ directory are pretty static and don't change from version to version, with the exception of the changelog. To include them in an application's source generally involves very little overhead and maintenance.> If you are building periodically from CVS then it seems like extra > work to make a package out of it just to install. Whenever I do > such a thing with someone else's proggie I usually just configure > --prefix=/some/temp/place && make && make install and just run out > of there. I guess it's slightly more complicated with flac because > of the plugin but not too bad.For those of us who use debian, the idea of installing something not in packaged form is almost blasphemy :) -- cae at bklyn dot org | Caleb Epstein | bklyn . org | Brooklyn Dust Bunny Mfg.
On Fri, Jun 15, 2001 at 02:42:53PM -0400, Caleb Epstein wrote:> Sorry, I'm just coming in in the middle of this, but I second > any motion to include a debian/ dirextory directory in the > flac sources. > > In general the build scripts and control files in a debian/ > directory are pretty static and don't change from version to > version, with the exception of the changelog. To include them > in an application's source generally involves very little > overhead and maintenance.Speaking from personal experience, I can say that this is often untrue. For example, the flac package, which has gone through 6 fast-paced upstream releases (0.5 through 0.10), two of these (0.5 and 0.6) have involved more than one Debian revision (0.5-2 and 0.6-2). If the debian/ directory had been included in CVS and released with flac, its contents would have been out of date almost immediately. Consider the following (very common) sequence of events: 1. New upstream release is made 2. Further changes are made in upstream CVS to work toward next release 3. Debian-specific changes are required (to meet policy compliance, or because of unforeseen integration issues with other Debian packages) These changes could be made in upstream CVS and in the Debian diff against the previous release, but users building Debian packages from the latest upstream sources would get an out-of-date (and possibly very broken) Debian package. So truly, the only people who could make use of the upstream debian/ directory are those who are building Debian packages from CVS. The debian/ directory included with official releases would always be out of date, and possibly broken. I am willing to consider the idea of including the debian/ directory in flac CVS (as opposed to my personal CVS) if Josh doesn't mind some additional tagging and branching, and the debian/ directory would be omitted from the official releases. There is yet another iteration of this argument happening on debian-devel as we speak: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-0106/msg00128.html -- - mdz