[[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.win...@ekiga.net 41 Buckmaster Road m: +44 7770 465 077 xmpp: rus...@winder.org.uk London SW11 1EN, UK w: www.russel.org.uk skype: russel_winder
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
