Simplified Debianization Process (was: Re: Difficult Packaging Practices (OT)
Hi Thomas, On 2019-05-28 07:48, Thomas Dettbarn wrote: > Debian was quite more complicated, and the documentation on that > topic was scattered all over the interwebs. Here I had to download > the sources, rename the directories, rename the package, repackage, > change some files, count the number of spaces at the beginning of a > line... I did it, but it is rather frustrating for new developers. > > Please please help them! :) That complexity comes from various reasons. There is an on-going project named duprkit[1], which aims to provide a simplified Debian packaging experience. Specifically, it defines a "Recipe" format (YAML+HFT), which can be automatically converted into a Debianized source tree (including downloading the source). This tool set allows: * automatic Recipe guessing (nothing -> Recipe) * translating Recipe into debian/ directory (Recipe -> debian/ dir) * automatic debian/ directory generation (nothing -> Recipe -> debian/ dir) * Recipe -> .deb/.dsc convertion (download, extract, debianize, build) I plan to beat both dh-make and debmake in the future. (although you might be interested in them) However, the problem is, even if this "duprkit" aims at "Simplification" and "Automization", documentation is still a problem due to lack of time and energy. The only thing you can read is the code and some examples[2]. Plus, due to the same reason y I'm still dragging the next major release after a significant redesign. [1] https://github.com/dupr/duprkit [2] https://github.com/dupr/duprkit/tree/master/examples
Re: Difficult Packaging Practices (OT)
On 5/28/19 9:48 AM, Thomas Dettbarn wrote: > Hello. > > > This is slightly off-topic, and I have not been on this mailinglist > since this thread started. Nevertheless, I would like to express my > support for changing the packaging practices. > > Over the last two weeks, I tried creating ports and packages for my > project "dMagnetic". It was rather easy for the OpenBSD and FreeBSD > ports system. All that was needed there were some changes to some > existing files, and my port was ready. FreeBSD was the easiest: > Sourcecode URL, SHA256 sum and a short description was all that was > needed. Now it is already part of the offical ports collection. > > Debian was quite more complicated, and the documentation on that > topic was scattered all over the interwebs. Here I had to download > the sources, rename the directories, rename the package, repackage, > change some files, count the number of spaces at the beginning of a > line... I did it, but it is rather frustrating for new developers. > > Please please help them! :) > > > Thomas Dettbarn > This thread reminded me the Debian User Repository thread: https://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2019/04/msg00064.html Such a repository can be a "easy" packaging zone, possibly attracting more contributing people. Eventually some people will try to improve the packages and get them into official Debian.
Re: Difficult Packaging Practices (OT)
Hello. This is slightly off-topic, and I have not been on this mailinglist since this thread started. Nevertheless, I would like to express my support for changing the packaging practices. Over the last two weeks, I tried creating ports and packages for my project "dMagnetic". It was rather easy for the OpenBSD and FreeBSD ports system. All that was needed there were some changes to some existing files, and my port was ready. FreeBSD was the easiest: Sourcecode URL, SHA256 sum and a short description was all that was needed. Now it is already part of the offical ports collection. Debian was quite more complicated, and the documentation on that topic was scattered all over the interwebs. Here I had to download the sources, rename the directories, rename the package, repackage, change some files, count the number of spaces at the beginning of a line... I did it, but it is rather frustrating for new developers. Please please help them! :) Thomas Dettbarn
