Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Benjamin Drung]

Hi,

How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make in Debian? The current
situation is that packaging-dev recommends bzr-builddeb and suggests
dh-make. It was requested to drop bzr-builddeb from Recommends and add
dh-make [1]. The recommended packages of packaging-dev should be
recommended by most of the Debian developer and not just by the
maintainer of packaging-dev or one single bug reporter. Therefore I am
asking you: How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make? Should they be
recommended or just suggested by packaging-dev?

[1] http://bugs.debian.org/688572

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Matthias Klumpp]

Hi!
Have you considered making a poll for this? Because everyone will tell
you a different oppinion...
For me, I think: bzr-builddeb is specific to Bzr, if you don't use
Bzr, it is useless. Instead, dh_make can be used to generate Debian
templates quickly, so it might be useful for more people, even those
not using Bzr.
I use the Debian Git tools for packaging, I never touched the Bzr
stuff, so I don't need it. I also don't need dh-make often, but it
sometimes is useful.
I can't give any hint, because I am just one developer, but I would
probably prefer dh-make for the reason above.
But if I would need to decide, I would probably suggest both and
recommend none of them :-)
Cheers,
   Matthias

2012/10/11 Benjamin Drung :
> Hi,
>
> How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make in Debian? The current
> situation is that packaging-dev recommends bzr-builddeb and suggests
> dh-make. It was requested to drop bzr-builddeb from Recommends and add
> dh-make [1]. The recommended packages of packaging-dev should be
> recommended by most of the Debian developer and not just by the
> maintainer of packaging-dev or one single bug reporter. Therefore I am
> asking you: How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make? Should they be
> recommended or just suggested by packaging-dev?
>
> [1] http://bugs.debian.org/688572
>
> --
> Benjamin Drung
> Debian & Ubuntu Developer


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/caknhny_tdfonxay3elns1jn2e+ofxe03etmrwfsmgxgordm...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Benjamin Drung]

A poll is a good idea. Can you recommend a site that allows setting up a
poll?

Am Donnerstag, den 11.10.2012, 23:29 +0200 schrieb Matthias Klumpp:
> Hi!
> Have you considered making a poll for this? Because everyone will tell
> you a different oppinion...
> For me, I think: bzr-builddeb is specific to Bzr, if you don't use
> Bzr, it is useless. Instead, dh_make can be used to generate Debian
> templates quickly, so it might be useful for more people, even those
> not using Bzr.
> I use the Debian Git tools for packaging, I never touched the Bzr
> stuff, so I don't need it. I also don't need dh-make often, but it
> sometimes is useful.
> I can't give any hint, because I am just one developer, but I would
> probably prefer dh-make for the reason above.
> But if I would need to decide, I would probably suggest both and
> recommend none of them :-)
> Cheers,
>Matthias
> 
> 2012/10/11 Benjamin Drung :
> > Hi,
> >
> > How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make in Debian? The current
> > situation is that packaging-dev recommends bzr-builddeb and suggests
> > dh-make. It was requested to drop bzr-builddeb from Recommends and add
> > dh-make [1]. The recommended packages of packaging-dev should be
> > recommended by most of the Debian developer and not just by the
> > maintainer of packaging-dev or one single bug reporter. Therefore I am
> > asking you: How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make? Should they be
> > recommended or just suggested by packaging-dev?
> >
> > [1] http://bugs.debian.org/688572
> >
> > --
> > Benjamin Drung
> > Debian & Ubuntu Developer


-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Steve Langasek]

Hi Benjamin,

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:38:08PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make in Debian? The current
> situation is that packaging-dev recommends bzr-builddeb and suggests
> dh-make. It was requested to drop bzr-builddeb from Recommends and add
> dh-make [1]. The recommended packages of packaging-dev should be
> recommended by most of the Debian developer and not just by the
> maintainer of packaging-dev or one single bug reporter.

I think this is a failing proposition.  There are as many different
preferences about packaging, to the nearest order of magnitude, as there are
Debian developers.  I'm fine with this package being one maintainer's
recommendations for some packages; I'm not at all ok with it being recast as
a blessed recommendation of the project, as I object to about a third of the
stuff in there.

> Therefore I am asking you: How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make? 
> Should they be recommended or just suggested by packaging-dev?

dh-make isn't so relevant now that debhelper 7 exists.  cp
/usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny debian/rules && dch
--create, manually create debian/control and debian/copyright, and that's
about it.  

bzr is the fourth most popular version control system in Debian according to
.  If you're going to demote
bzr-builddeb (which doesn't bother me), I think you should also be demoting
svn-buildpackage, because svn is horrible and should die.

Cheers,
-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:38:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: 
> bzr is the fourth most popular version control system in Debian according to
> .  If you're going to demote
> bzr-builddeb (which doesn't bother me), I think you should also be demoting
> svn-buildpackage, because svn is horrible and should die.

Well, you should also mention the numbers from this site. svn and git
are used about 20 and 40 times respectively more often than bzr for
packaging. Saying that bzr is popular is would be misleading
considering these numbers.

I actually heard of bzr-builddeb for the first time and my impression
always was that most packages using bzr are maintained by Ubuntu
developers.

In any case, the Recommends should be agnostic to the VCS being
used. Recommending dh_make is actually very sensible as it's always a
good start when packaging from scratch. I use it for all my packages
and gives a rough guideline for the packaging work.

Cheers,

Adrian


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Benjamin Drung]

Am Donnerstag, den 11.10.2012, 14:38 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> Hi Benjamin,
> 
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 10:38:08PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make in Debian? The current
> > situation is that packaging-dev recommends bzr-builddeb and suggests
> > dh-make. It was requested to drop bzr-builddeb from Recommends and add
> > dh-make [1]. The recommended packages of packaging-dev should be
> > recommended by most of the Debian developer and not just by the
> > maintainer of packaging-dev or one single bug reporter.
> 
> I think this is a failing proposition.  There are as many different
> preferences about packaging, to the nearest order of magnitude, as there are
> Debian developers.  I'm fine with this package being one maintainer's
> recommendations for some packages; I'm not at all ok with it being recast as
> a blessed recommendation of the project, as I object to about a third of the
> stuff in there.

The main purpose of this package is to help beginners to get ready for
packaging and not making a recommendation statement for the Debian
project. The question is: Will you recommend newcomers to install
packaging-dev to start packaging? Will installing packaging-dev be
enough or will you recommend to install bzr-builddeb or dh-make
afterwards?

> > Therefore I am asking you: How popular are bzr-builddeb and dh-make? 
> > Should they be recommended or just suggested by packaging-dev?
> 
> dh-make isn't so relevant now that debhelper 7 exists.  cp
> /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny debian/rules && dch
> --create, manually create debian/control and debian/copyright, and that's
> about it.  

That's my opinion, too.

> bzr is the fourth most popular version control system in Debian according to
> .  If you're going to demote
> bzr-builddeb (which doesn't bother me), I think you should also be demoting
> svn-buildpackage, because svn is horrible and should die.

I agree that Subversion should die, but it is still widely used.

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 11:57:55PM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:38:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: 
> > bzr is the fourth most popular version control system in Debian according to
> > .  If you're going to demote
> > bzr-builddeb (which doesn't bother me), I think you should also be demoting
> > svn-buildpackage, because svn is horrible and should die.

> Well, you should also mention the numbers from this site. svn and git
> are used about 20 and 40 times respectively more often than bzr for
> packaging. Saying that bzr is popular is would be misleading
> considering these numbers.

I didn't say it was popular, I said it was the fourth most popular.

Being agnostic to the VCS being used fails in the stated purpose of making
this package useful to new packagers.  New packagers should be strongly
steered away from using subversion.  I don't care if bzr-builddeb gets
demoted; I care that new packagers are not encouraged to use subversion over
bzr solely because subversion is more popular.  The popularity of subversion
for packaging is a measure of inertia and/or ignorance, not of the
appropriateness of the tool.

bzr (especially with bzr-builddeb) is the best tool for the job, but I know
not everyone shares that opinion.  git is a tolerable second.  svn should be
taken out and shot.

> Recommending dh_make is actually very sensible as it's always a
> good start when packaging from scratch. I use it for all my packages
> and gives a rough guideline for the packaging work.

I find the .ex files that it generates in debian/ to be a major distraction
nowadays, and greatly prefer to build the package up by hand.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Paul Wise]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:

> A poll is a good idea. Can you recommend a site that allows setting up a
> poll?

The Debian secretary was at one point going to setup devotee for this
sort of thing, don't think that ever happened though.

If you want some FSAAS (free-software-as-a-service), search for doodle
on this page:

https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/LeavingTheCloud

-- 
bye,
pabs

http://wiki.debian.org/PaulWise


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/caktje6fupbby+1sucgqjjk7nqbyfmo8y5zmocjvbuzdy8ad...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Craig Small]

On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:38:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> dh-make isn't so relevant now that debhelper 7 exists.  cp
> /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny debian/rules && dch
> --create, manually create debian/control and debian/copyright, and that's
> about it.  
dh-make comes from the era when deb-make (anyone remember that) was
around which, I think, was before debhelper was around.  It was
basically written to fix a "problem" which was bad templates getting
into the Debian archive.

debhelper has gotten smarter with every release and gradually what
dh-make has had to do is getting reduced.  I'm not sure we're at the
point of removing dh-make (it's an open question; I'm really not sure)
but perhaps we will be there one day.  As it was written to solve a
problem, if the problem goes then we won't need it.

Steve with his years of packaging experience is not probably a good
sample of one to base this upon. I'd be curious to see if newer
packagers use it or not.

As far as what packaging-dev recommends or suggests, I've never used it
so don't really care either way.  I am curious why a specific tool is
recommended over a generic one (I don't use bzr anywhere so it would be
useless for me).

 - Craig
-- 
Craig Small VK2XLZ   http://enc.com.au/  csmall at : enc.com.au
Debian GNU/Linux http://www.debian.org/  csmall at : debian.org
GPG fingerprint: 5D2F B320 B825 D939 04D2  0519 3938 F96B DF50 FEA5


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012050353.ga26...@enc.com.au

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Raphael Hertzog]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012, Craig Small wrote:
> Steve with his years of packaging experience is not probably a good
> sample of one to base this upon. I'd be curious to see if newer
> packagers use it or not.

I still use dh-make from time to time. Mainly to get a template for
debian/control and debian/copyright. It tend to be annoyed by the *.ex and
*.EX files though (IMO it would be better to have a debian/TODO listing
all the stuff that one should consider adding to the package with
appropriate pointers to the documentation).

In any case, I think it's a good idea to list dh-make in packaging-dev's
Recommends.

I have no opinion on bzr-builddeb.

> As far as what packaging-dev recommends or suggests, I've never used it
> so don't really care either way.  I am curious why a specific tool is
> recommended over a generic one (I don't use bzr anywhere so it would be
> useless for me).

The idea is that you get all the tools required to contribute to most of
the packaging teams in Debian.

It's not about endorsing a specific workflow.

Cheers,
-- 
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012065035.gb12...@x230-buxy.home.ouaza.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Neil Williams]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 16:03:53 +1100
Craig Small  wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 11, 2012 at 02:38:46PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > dh-make isn't so relevant now that debhelper 7 exists.  cp
> > /usr/share/doc/debhelper/examples/rules.tiny debian/rules && dch
> > --create, manually create debian/control and debian/copyright, and that's
> > about it.  
> 
> Steve with his years of packaging experience is not probably a good
> sample of one to base this upon. I'd be curious to see if newer
> packagers use it or not.

People around me @ work who are/were unfamiliar with Debian packaging
find the .ex files particularly useful as worked examples - especially
for the maintainer scripts, init scripts and manpage starters.

dh-make as an executable may have had it's day but the worked example
files are valuable and will remain so as long as the examples continue
to keep up with Policy.

-- 


Neil Williams
=
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/



pgpS5w2wtFzAE.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Игорь Пашев]

dh-make should be deprecated :-)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CALL-Q8yL-UtZ9rDMqkAQim9wZJRM8Bea1=tsyj6bub_t+pt...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Jon Dowland]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 04:03:53PM +1100, Craig Small wrote:
> Steve with his years of packaging experience is not probably a good
> sample of one to base this upon. I'd be curious to see if newer
> packagers use it or not.

I don't bother with dh-make anymore. Like Steve the (mixed-case! Argh!) .ex
(.EX) files just get on my nerves. A dh7+ rules file I can type from memory
now and that just leaves the minor convenience of having the control file
stanzas written out.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012083903.GB24924@debian

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Andrej N. Gritsenko]

Hello!

Игорь Пашев has written on Friday, 12 October, at 12:29:
>dh-make should be deprecated :-)

I don't agree with that. dh-make is very useful in some cases. And I have
created a lot of own packages already, some of them without dh-make but I
know good sides of it.

Andriy.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012123020.gb...@rep.kiev.ua

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Nikolaus Rath]

Craig Small  writes:
> debhelper has gotten smarter with every release and gradually what
> dh-make has had to do is getting reduced.  I'm not sure we're at the
> point of removing dh-make (it's an open question; I'm really not sure)
> but perhaps we will be there one day.  As it was written to solve a
> problem, if the problem goes then we won't need it.
>
> Steve with his years of packaging experience is not probably a good
> sample of one to base this upon. I'd be curious to see if newer
> packagers use it or not.

I've started packaging two packages about a year ago and first tried it
with dh-make. I found it confusing and not helpful. I don't remember
many details of dh-make, but the gazillions of files that it created
were definitely a contributing factor. I then tried debhelper which made
me much happier and have been using it ever since.

Best,

   -Nikolaus

-- 
 »Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a Banana.«

  PGP fingerprint: 5B93 61F8 4EA2 E279 ABF6  02CF A9AD B7F8 AE4E 425C


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87626f7rtx@inspiron.ap.columbia.edu

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Marc Haber]

On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:31:00 -0700, Steve Langasek 
wrote:
>The popularity of subversion
>for packaging is a measure of inertia and/or ignorance, not of the
>appropriateness of the tool.

I find this attitute improperly offensive. The choice of tool is the
decision of the maintainer, and subversion does version control rather
well for most uses.

Greetings
Marc
-- 
-- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1tonac-0001xl...@swivel.zugschlus.de

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Игорь Пашев]

For git we have gitweb, gitolite, git-daemon, pristine-tar.
I'd like to have similar for bzr, hg and svn.

It's not about technology, but about collaboration.

That's why I prefer git.

2012/10/17 Marc Haber :
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:31:00 -0700, Steve Langasek 
> wrote:
>>The popularity of subversion
>>for packaging is a measure of inertia and/or ignorance, not of the
>>appropriateness of the tool.
>
> I find this attitute improperly offensive. The choice of tool is the
> decision of the maintainer, and subversion does version control rather
> well for most uses.
>
> Greetings
> Marc
> --
> -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
> Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
> Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
> Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1tonac-0001xl...@swivel.zugschlus.de
>


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/call-q8xzg7_se9yuprgh_a5asu8v+ktzxy6j5_q0gzk+0cq...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Hideki Yamane]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 12:57:18 +0400
Игорь Пашев  wrote:
> For git we have gitweb, gitolite, git-daemon, pristine-tar.
> I'd like to have similar for bzr, hg and svn.
> 
> It's not about technology, but about collaboration.

 No, LP is good website for development with collaboration.
 (A workflow is also important piece of development)

 Anyway, it's just asking packaging-dev pulls/suggests certain package
 or not by default.


-- 
Regards,

 Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
 http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20121017180751.74cb89806dab944d9ca6d...@debian.or.jp

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Игорь Пашев]

2012/10/17 Hideki Yamane :
> No, LP is good website for development with collaboration.

Can I have my own LP, please?


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CALL-Q8wJRMFqyV=p6+baq29qxk+ug3rpakpzgi3qqwwrobz...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Daniel Holbach]

Hello,

On 17.10.2012 11:13, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> 2012/10/17 Hideki Yamane :
>> No, LP is good website for development with collaboration.
> 
> Can I have my own LP, please?

https://dev.launchpad.net/Running should help you with that.

Have a great day,
 Daniel


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/507e7805.7090...@ubuntu.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Hideki Yamane]

On Wed, 17 Oct 2012 13:13:42 +0400
Игорь Пашев  wrote:
> Can I have my own LP, please?

 Well, you can get source code. see https://dev.launchpad.net/Trunk

 # I just annoyed heavily relying on LP as my previous mails in thread.
   However, it looks good for me.


-- 
Regards,

 Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
 http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYaman


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20121017181954.1dd9e02589dfd9328c777...@debian.or.jp

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Philipp Kern]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:19:01AM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> On 17.10.2012 11:13, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> > 2012/10/17 Hideki Yamane :
> >> No, LP is good website for development with collaboration.
> > Can I have my own LP, please?
> https://dev.launchpad.net/Running should help you with that.

With the danger of being sued if you put up the result onto the public
interwebs. 

Kind regards
Philipp Kern


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:43:36PM +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 11:19:01AM +0200, Daniel Holbach wrote:
> > On 17.10.2012 11:13, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> > > 2012/10/17 Hideki Yamane :
> > >> No, LP is good website for development with collaboration.
> > > Can I have my own LP, please?
> > https://dev.launchpad.net/Running should help you with that.
> 
> With the danger of being sued if you put up the result onto the public
> interwebs. 

Could you please expand on that? Logo / trademark reasons or license
issues?

> 
> Kind regards
> Philipp Kern

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte 
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Philipp Kern]

Paul,

am Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:48:39PM -0400 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> > With the danger of being sued if you put up the result onto the public
> > interwebs. 
> Could you please expand on that? Logo / trademark reasons or license
> issues?

it's not very hard to find https://dev.launchpad.net/LaunchpadLicense

It's designed not to be run outside Canonical except for development.
And it's not just the logo/trademark, no. I'd completely understand that.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Jeremy Stanley]

On 2012-10-17 23:55:08 +0200 (+0200), Philipp Kern wrote:
> am Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:48:39PM -0400 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
> > > With the danger of being sued if you put up the result onto the public
> > > interwebs. 
> > 
> > Could you please expand on that? Logo / trademark reasons or license
> > issues?
> 
> it's not very hard to find https://dev.launchpad.net/LaunchpadLicense
> 
> It's designed not to be run outside Canonical except for development.
> And it's not just the logo/trademark, no. I'd completely understand that.

The section to which you seem to be referring is relevant
specifically to "image and icon files in Launchpad." If you replace
those with your own artwork or some other released under a
compatible license and respect any other requirements of the AGPLv3,
it doesn't sound like there should be any concern on the part of
Canonical. What am I missing?
-- 
{ IRL(Jeremy_Stanley); WWW(http://fungi.yuggoth.org/); PGP(43495829);
WHOIS(STANL3-ARIN); SMTP(fu...@yuggoth.org); FINGER(fu...@yuggoth.org);
MUD(kin...@katarsis.mudpy.org:6669); IRC(fu...@irc.yuggoth.org#ccl); }


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121017221635.gl22...@yuggoth.org

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

On 17 October 2012 22:55, Philipp Kern  wrote:
> Paul,
>
> am Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 05:48:39PM -0400 hast du folgendes geschrieben:
>> > With the danger of being sued if you put up the result onto the public
>> > interwebs.
>> Could you please expand on that? Logo / trademark reasons or license
>> issues?
>
> it's not very hard to find https://dev.launchpad.net/LaunchpadLicense
>
> It's designed not to be run outside Canonical except for development.
> And it's not just the logo/trademark, no. I'd completely understand that.
>

Huh?! Please read it again.

Code is licensed under under the GNU Affero General Public License, version 3
Image and icon files are copyrighted, but can be used in dev environments

Similar to how e.g. Firefox is Iceweasel in Debian.
So yes you can run in outside of Canonical as long as you provide your
own images & icons (there are not that many and readily replaceable
with tango icons)

@Jeremy I don't think you are missing anything =)

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/canbhluifyhoaxydbnk9rdkd7ketbj9y+jpjbq0a4ui5jeok...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

On 17 October 2012 09:57, Игорь Пашев  wrote:
> For git we have gitweb, gitolite, git-daemon, pristine-tar.
> I'd like to have similar for bzr, hg and svn.
>

bzr-builddeb gives pristine-tar support

bzr serve is the equivalent of git-daemon and it is builtin

loggerhead is replacement for gitweb

Above three are packaged in debian. Loggerhead is used @
http://anonscm.debian.org/loggerhead/ as well as savannah and
launchpad.

gitolite  - 3 replacements are listed here
http://serverfault.com/questions/325721/something-like-gitolite-for-bazaar
(I wouldn't be expecting them to be 100% feature complete, but
actually it's easier in bzr since branches are direcories and code
repository can be separate form the branch, you can simply use POSIX
ACL on the folders, yet share the main repo with stacked branches)


> It's not about technology, but about collaboration.
>
> That's why I prefer git.
>

Huh, these two contradict each other unless you somehow imply that all
of the people you ever would want to collaborate with use git.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.



> 2012/10/17 Marc Haber :
>> On Thu, 11 Oct 2012 16:31:00 -0700, Steve Langasek 
>> wrote:
>>>The popularity of subversion
>>>for packaging is a measure of inertia and/or ignorance, not of the
>>>appropriateness of the tool.
>>
>> I find this attitute improperly offensive. The choice of tool is the
>> decision of the maintainer, and subversion does version control rather
>> well for most uses.
>>
>> Greetings
>> Marc
>> --
>> -- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -
>> Marc Haber |   " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
>> Mannheim, Germany  | Beginning of Wisdom " | http://www.zugschlus.de/
>> Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fon: *49 621 72739834
>>
>>
>> --
>> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
>> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
>> Archive: http://lists.debian.org/e1tonac-0001xl...@swivel.zugschlus.de
>>
>
>
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 
> http://lists.debian.org/call-q8xzg7_se9yuprgh_a5asu8v+ktzxy6j5_q0gzk+0cq...@mail.gmail.com
>


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUgfpgDkJq0c-1UjXM1Q=5k+owkcon1ma-zisjf0n5w...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Philipp Kern]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 10:16:35PM +, Jeremy Stanley wrote:
> The section to which you seem to be referring is relevant
> specifically to "image and icon files in Launchpad." If you replace
> those with your own artwork or some other released under a
> compatible license and respect any other requirements of the AGPLv3,
> it doesn't sound like there should be any concern on the part of
> Canonical. What am I missing?

The last time I looked this was a non-negligible amount of files, but I
lack the resources to re-check. The point was that you cannot take it
as-is and answering "here's the source" to "I want my own LP for non-LP
development" is not exactly the truth.

I don't know if they split the encumbered files off the main repository.
Maybe I'm too pessimistic here.

Kind regards
Philipp Kern


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Tollef Fog Heen]

]] Dmitrijs Ledkovs 

> loggerhead is replacement for gitweb

As one of the alioth admins, I'd like to contest this statement.

loggerhead is a replacement for gitweb in the same way that crawling is
a replacement for sprinting.

Yes, we «run» it, but it's memory-hungry, slow and crash-prone.  It also
wedges randomly and sometimes forgets about half the repositories that
exists on alioth.

-- 
Tollef Fog Heen
UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d30gwazb@qurzaw.varnish-software.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Игорь Пашев]

2012/10/18 Dmitrijs Ledkovs :
> bzr serve is the equivalent of git-daemon and it is builtin
>
> loggerhead is replacement for gitweb

Last time I tried it, it seemed to support only one repository.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CALL-Q8wqesrOO5e=mo+8qxfyfxmmyey3yin+tp5dwzinszz...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

On 18 October 2012 07:27, Tollef Fog Heen  wrote:
> ]] Dmitrijs Ledkovs
>
>> loggerhead is replacement for gitweb
>
> As one of the alioth admins, I'd like to contest this statement.
>
> loggerhead is a replacement for gitweb in the same way that crawling is
> a replacement for sprinting.
>
> Yes, we «run» it, but it's memory-hungry, slow and crash-prone.  It also
> wedges randomly and sometimes forgets about half the repositories that
> exists on alioth.
>

True. Sorry if the statement did not come out as neutral as intended.

Yeah, I did end up using nginx & uwsgi workers to actually host it
together with hosting bzr smart server as well.

I'd merely wanted to say there "actually there is approx.
functionality for web browsing the bzr branches".

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/canbhluiugwzsfytfvoj2zkthlitzy7+ltfazxbp+1_q82no...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

On 18 October 2012 08:13, Игорь Пашев  wrote:
> 2012/10/18 Dmitrijs Ledkovs :
>> bzr serve is the equivalent of git-daemon and it is builtin
>>
>> loggerhead is replacement for gitweb
>
> Last time I tried it, it seemed to support only one repository.

Maybe you didn't configure it right? Look on alioth how it's setup,
after a little bit of fiddling I got it to display all the branches
recursively as I needed / wanted at the time.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUgAoJ+zLUe=+80we0vvi-rb0l+hjmoqf+pxkbns5kf...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Roland Mas]

Dmitrijs Ledkovs:

>>> loggerhead is replacement for gitweb

Tollef Fog Heen:

>> Yes, we «run» it, but it's memory-hungry, slow and crash-prone.  

Dmitrijs Ledkovs:

> Yeah, I did end up using nginx & uwsgi workers to actually host it
> together with hosting bzr smart server as well.

If you'd care to share that setup, or a how-to, I'd be interested in
integrating it in FusionForge (and indirectly Alioth).

Roland.
-- 
Roland Mas

Infinity contains more things than you think.  Everything, for a start.
  -- in Witches Abroad (Terry Pratchett)


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/87k3uop2ej@polymir.internal.placard.fr.eu.org

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Steve Langasek]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 12:57:18PM +0400, Игорь Пашев wrote:
> For git we have gitweb, gitolite, git-daemon, pristine-tar.
> I'd like to have similar for bzr, hg and svn.

There's nothing specific to git about pristine-tar.  In fact, it is much
more consistently used with bzr due to the top-notch bzr-builddeb workflow
than it is with git.

The last time I complained about non-pristine-tar git package repos on IRC,
I was told that pristine-tar doesn't scale.  So apparently in git usage,
folks haven't worked out that the unpacked upstream source should be tracked
as a branch instead of trying to track a pristine-tar delta against the
upstream git branch directly.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek  writes:

> The last time I complained about non-pristine-tar git package repos on
> IRC, I was told that pristine-tar doesn't scale.  So apparently in git
> usage, folks haven't worked out that the unpacked upstream source should
> be tracked as a branch instead of trying to track a pristine-tar delta
> against the upstream git branch directly.

What did you mean by that last sentence?  I was unable to parse it.  In
particular, I think I don't understand the difference between "tracked as
a branch" and "track a pristine-tar delta against the upstream git
branch," which both sound like they mean the same thing.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87ehkv40d9@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Chow Loong Jin]

On 19/10/2012 11:16, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek  writes:
> 
>> The last time I complained about non-pristine-tar git package repos on
>> IRC, I was told that pristine-tar doesn't scale.  So apparently in git
>> usage, folks haven't worked out that the unpacked upstream source should
>> be tracked as a branch instead of trying to track a pristine-tar delta
>> against the upstream git branch directly.
> 
> What did you mean by that last sentence?  I was unable to parse it.  In
> particular, I think I don't understand the difference between "tracked as
> a branch" and "track a pristine-tar delta against the upstream git
> branch," which both sound like they mean the same thing.
> 

I think he meant running pristine-tar commit with tarballs on upstream branches
that share history with the upstream VCS repository, rather than the upstream
branch that git import-orig maintains.

But there shouldn't really be an issue with this kind of usage either -- I've
used pristine-tar with upstream VCS branches before for storing release 
tarballs.

-- 
Kind regards,
Loong Jin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Russ Allbery]

Chow Loong Jin  writes:
> On 19/10/2012 11:16, Russ Allbery wrote:

>> What did you mean by that last sentence?  I was unable to parse it.  In
>> particular, I think I don't understand the difference between "tracked
>> as a branch" and "track a pristine-tar delta against the upstream git
>> branch," which both sound like they mean the same thing.

> I think he meant running pristine-tar commit with tarballs on upstream
> branches that share history with the upstream VCS repository, rather
> than the upstream branch that git import-orig maintains.

> But there shouldn't really be an issue with this kind of usage either --
> I've used pristine-tar with upstream VCS branches before for storing
> release tarballs.

Indeed, and with --upstream-vcs-tag, it's now easy to combine the merits
of both approaches.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87vce72ioe@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:16:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek  writes:

> > The last time I complained about non-pristine-tar git package repos on
> > IRC, I was told that pristine-tar doesn't scale.  So apparently in git
> > usage, folks haven't worked out that the unpacked upstream source should
> > be tracked as a branch instead of trying to track a pristine-tar delta
> > against the upstream git branch directly.

> What did you mean by that last sentence?  I was unable to parse it.  In
> particular, I think I don't understand the difference between "tracked as
> a branch" and "track a pristine-tar delta against the upstream git
> branch," which both sound like they mean the same thing.

The UDD branch model used in Launchpad has three branches (not counting the
pristine-tar objects):

 - the upstream branch (as it exists upstream)
 - a synthesized branch which merges from the upstream branch and tracks
   the contents of the upstream tarball releases /as contents/
 - the packaging branch

AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these
branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the
upstream branch - so each pristine-tar blob contains all the information
about autogenerated files in the tarball, in a format that doesn't in turn
compress well in the git repository.  And if your packaging branch actually
tracks the full source package contents, then it would have to track the
autogenerated files, so you might actually be storing these files twice.

In UDD, the delta to the autogenerated files from one upstream release to
the next is stored like any other branch delta, and the pristine-tar blob
only has to account for the tarball/gzip metadata itself.  I believe this
was done by design precisely in order to address the pristine-tar
scalability problem; in any case, I don't hear complaints about pristine-tar
being unusable for Ubuntu packages for the reasons people seem to be
shunning it for Debian packages in git.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Chow Loong Jin]

On 19/10/2012 12:35, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 08:16:50PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Steve Langasek  writes:
> 
>>> The last time I complained about non-pristine-tar git package repos on
>>> IRC, I was told that pristine-tar doesn't scale.  So apparently in git
>>> usage, folks haven't worked out that the unpacked upstream source should
>>> be tracked as a branch instead of trying to track a pristine-tar delta
>>> against the upstream git branch directly.
> 
>> What did you mean by that last sentence?  I was unable to parse it.  In
>> particular, I think I don't understand the difference between "tracked as
>> a branch" and "track a pristine-tar delta against the upstream git
>> branch," which both sound like they mean the same thing.
> 
> The UDD branch model used in Launchpad has three branches (not counting the
> pristine-tar objects):
> 
>  - the upstream branch (as it exists upstream)
>  - a synthesized branch which merges from the upstream branch and tracks
>the contents of the upstream tarball releases /as contents/
>  - the packaging branch
> 
> AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these
> branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the
> upstream branch - so each pristine-tar blob contains all the information
> about autogenerated files in the tarball, in a format that doesn't in turn
> compress well in the git repository.  And if your packaging branch actually
> tracks the full source package contents, then it would have to track the
> autogenerated files, so you might actually be storing these files twice.

Actually most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the *first* of these
branches. They usually have an upstream branch which is synthesized solely from
importing tarballs using git import-orig. In other words, the typical practice
is to avoid sharing git history with the upstream VCS, which in turn works out
very well for git-dch, because you don't get unnecessary upstream changes
documented in debian/changelog.

> In UDD, the delta to the autogenerated files from one upstream release to
> the next is stored like any other branch delta, and the pristine-tar blob
> only has to account for the tarball/gzip metadata itself.  I believe this
> was done by design precisely in order to address the pristine-tar
> scalability problem; in any case, I don't hear complaints about pristine-tar
> being unusable for Ubuntu packages for the reasons people seem to be
> shunning it for Debian packages in git.

I honestly haven't heard about many people shunning pristine-tar for Debian
packages in git. I suspect you're hearing about this from a vocal minority who
also use alternative git packaging helpers.

-- 
Kind regards,
Loong Jin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek  writes:

> The UDD branch model used in Launchpad has three branches (not counting
> the pristine-tar objects):

>  - the upstream branch (as it exists upstream)
>  - a synthesized branch which merges from the upstream branch and tracks
>the contents of the upstream tarball releases /as contents/
>  - the packaging branch

> AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these
> branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the
> upstream branch - so each pristine-tar blob contains all the information
> about autogenerated files in the tarball, in a format that doesn't in
> turn compress well in the git repository.

Oh.  No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong, since any user of
git-buildpackge will have the second.  Rather, what's normally missing
from most Git-based packaging is the *first* branch, since the
git-buildpackage workflow was designed originally around importing
upstream tarballs to create the second branch.

> And if your packaging branch actually tracks the full source package
> contents, then it would have to track the autogenerated files, so you
> might actually be storing these files twice.

Delta compression should always take care of that, no matter how you
organize your repository.

> In UDD, the delta to the autogenerated files from one upstream release to
> the next is stored like any other branch delta, and the pristine-tar blob
> only has to account for the tarball/gzip metadata itself.

This is how git-buildpackage works with --upstream-vcs-tag, which is
relatively recent.

> I believe this was done by design precisely in order to address the
> pristine-tar scalability problem; in any case, I don't hear complaints
> about pristine-tar being unusable for Ubuntu packages for the reasons
> people seem to be shunning it for Debian packages in git.

This is the first I've heard of people thinking pristine-tar doesn't
scale, and your interpretation doesn't appear to match the reality of how
git-buildpackage works, so now I'm really curious what they were thinking
of.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87mwzj2hki@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Russ Allbery]

Russ Allbery  writes:
> Steve Langasek  writes:

>> And if your packaging branch actually tracks the full source package
>> contents, then it would have to track the autogenerated files, so you
>> might actually be storing these files twice.

> Delta compression should always take care of that, no matter how you
> organize your repository.

Oh, wait, no, I see what you're saying: one version in the pristine-tar
xdelta and one version in the packaging branch.  Yes, in that case, you'd
probably store it twice, since Git isn't going to be able to figure out
what's going on in that xdelta.  But that would require using pristine-tar
with a branch that isn't an actual upstream branch in the git-buildpackage
sense, which pretty much requires not using git-buildpackage (or at least
using a very strange set of options).  While certainly nothing requires
one to use git-buildpackage with a Git-based workflow, I suspect it's the
most common approach.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87d30f120y@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Chow Loong Jin]

On 19/10/2012 12:54, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Delta compression should always take care of that, no matter how you
> organize your repository.

It only works if your things are bitwise similar in the first place. But does
pristine-tar's delta bear any semblance to the original copy of the file? If you
store two copies of a file, one uncompressed and one gzipped, git's delta
compression probably wouldn't be able to take care of that.

-- 
Kind regards,
Loong Jin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Steve Langasek]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these
> > branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the
> > upstream branch - so each pristine-tar blob contains all the information
> > about autogenerated files in the tarball, in a format that doesn't in
> > turn compress well in the git repository.

> Oh.  No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong, since any user of
> git-buildpackge will have the second.  Rather, what's normally missing
> from most Git-based packaging is the *first* branch, since the
> git-buildpackage workflow was designed originally around importing
> upstream tarballs to create the second branch.

Ok.  Well, bear in mind that this is all second-hand.  I was complaining on
IRC about having to work with the designated Vcs-Git branch on a package (I
don't remember which) that didn't use pristine-tar, and multiple developers
rallied to the defense of this practice, claiming that pristine-tar caused
git repositories to rapidly balloon in size.  Perhaps one of them can speak
for themselves about what they think the issues are. :)

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:09:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Oh, wait, no, I see what you're saying: one version in the pristine-tar
> xdelta and one version in the packaging branch.  Yes, in that case, you'd
> probably store it twice, since Git isn't going to be able to figure out
> what's going on in that xdelta.  But that would require using pristine-tar
> with a branch that isn't an actual upstream branch in the git-buildpackage
> sense, which pretty much requires not using git-buildpackage (or at least
> using a very strange set of options).  While certainly nothing requires
> one to use git-buildpackage with a Git-based workflow, I suspect it's the
> most common approach.

So my own experience is that almost none of the Debian packages maintained
in git that I try to touch appear to use git-buildpackage in anything
resembling a sensible manner.  The XSF packages aren't set up for
git-buildpackage (which is reasonable since their git usage predates git-bp
and it's a comparatively large team with established practices), and random
other packages I've looked at have also shunned git-bp conventions. 
Compared to the simple consistency of Ubuntu UDD branches, I find this
maddening.

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:02:59PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
> Actually most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the *first* of these
> branches.  They usually have an upstream branch which is synthesized
> solely from importing tarballs using git import-orig.  In other words, the
> typical practice is to avoid sharing git history with the upstream VCS,
> which in turn works out very well for git-dch, because you don't get
> unnecessary upstream changes documented in debian/changelog.

This seems utterly broken to me and optimized for the wrong priority.  I
cannot imagine why anyone would endure git's user interface and then not
even use the DVCS functionality for collaboration with upstream.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Chow Loong Jin]

On 19/10/2012 13:29, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>>> AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these
>>> branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the
>>> upstream branch - so each pristine-tar blob contains all the information
>>> about autogenerated files in the tarball, in a format that doesn't in
>>> turn compress well in the git repository.
> 
>> Oh.  No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong, since any user of
>> git-buildpackge will have the second.  Rather, what's normally missing
>> from most Git-based packaging is the *first* branch, since the
>> git-buildpackage workflow was designed originally around importing
>> upstream tarballs to create the second branch.
> 
> Ok.  Well, bear in mind that this is all second-hand.  I was complaining on
> IRC about having to work with the designated Vcs-Git branch on a package (I
> don't remember which) that didn't use pristine-tar, and multiple developers
> rallied to the defense of this practice, claiming that pristine-tar caused
> git repositories to rapidly balloon in size.  Perhaps one of them can speak
> for themselves about what they think the issues are. :)
> 
> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 10:09:17PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> Oh, wait, no, I see what you're saying: one version in the pristine-tar
>> xdelta and one version in the packaging branch.  Yes, in that case, you'd
>> probably store it twice, since Git isn't going to be able to figure out
>> what's going on in that xdelta.  But that would require using pristine-tar
>> with a branch that isn't an actual upstream branch in the git-buildpackage
>> sense, which pretty much requires not using git-buildpackage (or at least
>> using a very strange set of options).  While certainly nothing requires
>> one to use git-buildpackage with a Git-based workflow, I suspect it's the
>> most common approach.
> 
> So my own experience is that almost none of the Debian packages maintained
> in git that I try to touch appear to use git-buildpackage in anything
> resembling a sensible manner.  The XSF packages aren't set up for
> git-buildpackage (which is reasonable since their git usage predates git-bp
> and it's a comparatively large team with established practices), and random
> other packages I've looked at have also shunned git-bp conventions. 
> Compared to the simple consistency of Ubuntu UDD branches, I find this
> maddening.
> 
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:02:59PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:
>> Actually most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the *first* of these
>> branches.  They usually have an upstream branch which is synthesized
>> solely from importing tarballs using git import-orig.  In other words, the
>> typical practice is to avoid sharing git history with the upstream VCS,
>> which in turn works out very well for git-dch, because you don't get
>> unnecessary upstream changes documented in debian/changelog.
> 
> This seems utterly broken to me and optimized for the wrong priority.  I
> cannot imagine why anyone would endure git's user interface and then not
> even use the DVCS functionality for collaboration with upstream.

I'd rather you didn't use the word endure. I find git's user interface perfectly
acceptable, and even preferable compared to other VCSes. At the very least, I
don't have to keep throwing away my history due to repository pack format
mismatches. But let's leave it at that and not escalate this into an
unproductive VCS war here.

On the other hand, I don't see why this is optimized for the wrong priority.
Debian package releases have always been tarball-oriented, and patches are kept
in debian/patches using quilt, especially with debsrc3.0.

Keeping the packaging repository completely separate from the upstream
repository allows the history to be kept much cleaner and simpler than it would
be otherwise, while following the same tarball-oriented approach we've been
using all the while.

As far as collaboration with upstream goes, you can still clone the upstream
repository separately or otherwise just add it as another remote to your local
repository.

-- 
Kind regards,
Loong Jin



signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Julien Cristau]

On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 22:29:53 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:

> On Thu, Oct 18, 2012 at 09:54:27PM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> > > AIUI, most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the second of these
> > > branches, which means the pristine-tar binary delta is done against the
> > > upstream branch - so each pristine-tar blob contains all the information
> > > about autogenerated files in the tarball, in a format that doesn't in
> > > turn compress well in the git repository.
> 
> > Oh.  No, I'm fairly certain that you're wrong, since any user of
> > git-buildpackge will have the second.  Rather, what's normally missing
> > from most Git-based packaging is the *first* branch, since the
> > git-buildpackage workflow was designed originally around importing
> > upstream tarballs to create the second branch.
> 
> Ok.  Well, bear in mind that this is all second-hand.  I was complaining on
> IRC about having to work with the designated Vcs-Git branch on a package (I
> don't remember which) that didn't use pristine-tar, and multiple developers
> rallied to the defense of this practice, claiming that pristine-tar caused
> git repositories to rapidly balloon in size.  Perhaps one of them can speak
> for themselves about what they think the issues are. :)
> 
That might well have been me.  I don't know what "most Git-based
packaging" does, as I don't have much git-based packaging experience
outside the XSF...

I've tried importing the xorg-server tarballs using pristine-tar against
the upstream git release tags once, and it made the repo unbearably
large (each delta was huge, and git couldn't compress it meaning the
repo size increased linearly with the number of imported tarballs).

Note that I don't use git-buildpackage (I tried it a couple of times a
while ago, it didn't seem to add anything I cared about to
dpkg-buildpackage, other than complexity), and I don't store or want to
store the autotools noise in the packaging or upstream branches, so in
order to import the tarballs properly I'd have to add a new branch (or a
bunch of tags) for their contents and remember to update and push it
along with the other branches at each upstream release.  And if I ever
forgot to push one of those that'd make the pristine-tar branch useless
for anyone else, since they wouldn't have the needed data.  Easier to
just use uscan to get the tarball from upstream, so bothering with
pristine-tar didn't seem worth it at the time.

Cheers,
Julien


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Russ Allbery]

Steve Langasek  writes:
> On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:02:59PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:

>> Actually most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the *first* of
>> these branches.  They usually have an upstream branch which is
>> synthesized solely from importing tarballs using git import-orig.  In
>> other words, the typical practice is to avoid sharing git history with
>> the upstream VCS, which in turn works out very well for git-dch,
>> because you don't get unnecessary upstream changes documented in
>> debian/changelog.

> This seems utterly broken to me and optimized for the wrong priority.

It makes perfect sense if you're packaging software where upstream doesn't
use a DVCS, which I'll point out is still the most common case.  :)

> I cannot imagine why anyone would endure git's user interface and then
> not even use the DVCS functionality for collaboration with upstream.

I've used both Git and bzr for real-world projects and found Git's user
interface significantly superior to bzr's, which is why I've since
converted all of my bzr projects to Git.  YMMV.

-- 
Russ Allbery (r...@debian.org)   


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/878vb2tp7z@windlord.stanford.edu

Re: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make

[Steve Langasek]

On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 09:13:04AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Steve Langasek  writes:
> > On Fri, Oct 19, 2012 at 01:02:59PM +0800, Chow Loong Jin wrote:

> >> Actually most users of pristine-tar in git don't have the *first* of
> >> these branches.  They usually have an upstream branch which is
> >> synthesized solely from importing tarballs using git import-orig.  In
> >> other words, the typical practice is to avoid sharing git history with
> >> the upstream VCS, which in turn works out very well for git-dch,
> >> because you don't get unnecessary upstream changes documented in
> >> debian/changelog.

> > This seems utterly broken to me and optimized for the wrong priority.

> It makes perfect sense if you're packaging software where upstream doesn't
> use a DVCS, which I'll point out is still the most common case.  :)

Upstream doesn't have to be using a DVCS for your DVCS to be able to import
their history (git and bzr both have bridges to a number of other VCS
sources).  Evidently my experience as a maintainer is not as typical as I
thought it was.  I find that having the entire history (upstream+packaging)
at my fingertips in a single place is *the* biggest multiplier for my
productivity, and when I don't have it (generally because the tools are
getting in my way), I feel its absence profoundly.

-- 
Steve Langasek   Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer   to set it on, and I can move the world.
Ubuntu Developerhttp://www.debian.org/
slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Benjamin Drung]

Am Freitag, den 12.10.2012, 10:04 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
> On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 5:35 AM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> 
> > A poll is a good idea. Can you recommend a site that allows setting up a
> > poll?
> 
> The Debian secretary was at one point going to setup devotee for this
> sort of thing, don't think that ever happened though.
> 
> If you want some FSAAS (free-software-as-a-service), search for doodle
> on this page:
> 
> https://wiki.debian.org/FreedomBox/LeavingTheCloud

Thanks.

I have setup a poll for it:

https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/Popularity_of_bzr-builddeb_and_dh-make/

The poll will be closed in one week (if enough votes are collected).

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Hideki Yamane]

Hi,

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:06:11 +0200
Benjamin Drung  wrote:
> I have setup a poll for it:
> https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/Popularity_of_bzr-builddeb_and_dh-make/

 Thanks! :)  voted.

 My opinion is as BTSed,
  - dh-make is still usable for 1st step. Maybe experienced/skilled developer
don't need it (but needed it at least for me ;)

  - bzr-builddeb is, well, it seems that is useful in UDD (Ubuntu Distributed
Development, as Ubuntu packaging guide says) way, but now it heavily 
relies on Launchpad in my point of view. And, packaging-dev can specify
vendor-specific Recommends/Suggest in its rules, then use it for Ubuntu
is meaningful.

(Well, LP is quite nice and Debian should consider to introduce its good
 point (user friendly web interface, etc), but I don't want to depend on
 it, sorry).

-- 
Regards,

 Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
 http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20121012211342.4c62fb639fdcf095a73d6...@debian.or.jp

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Benjamin Drung]

Am Freitag, den 12.10.2012, 21:13 +0900 schrieb Hideki Yamane:
>   - bzr-builddeb is, well, it seems that is useful in UDD (Ubuntu Distributed
> Development, as Ubuntu packaging guide says) way, but now it heavily 
> relies on Launchpad in my point of view.

How does bzr-builddeb depend on Launchpad? bzr is integrated into
Launchpad, but you can use bzr without Launchpad as every other DVCS.

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:06:11PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote: 
> Thanks.
> 
> I have setup a poll for it:
> 
> https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/Popularity_of_bzr-builddeb_and_dh-make/

I voted, thanks!

Cheers,

Adrian


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 21:13 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 12:06:11 +0200
> Benjamin Drung  wrote:
> > I have setup a poll for it:
> > https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/Popularity_of_bzr-builddeb_and_dh-make/
> 
>  Thanks! :)  voted.
> 
>  My opinion is as BTSed,
>   - dh-make is still usable for 1st step. Maybe experienced/skilled developer
> don't need it (but needed it at least for me ;)
> 
>   - bzr-builddeb is, well, it seems that is useful in UDD (Ubuntu Distributed
> Development, as Ubuntu packaging guide says) way, but now it heavily 
> relies on Launchpad in my point of view. And, packaging-dev can specify
> vendor-specific Recommends/Suggest in its rules, then use it for Ubuntu
> is meaningful.
> 
> (Well, LP is quite nice and Debian should consider to introduce its good
>  point (user friendly web interface, etc), but I don't want to depend on
>  it, sorry).
bzr-builddeb is perfectly well usable without Launchpad; it doesn't
depend on it. I've been using it with bzr.debian.org for a long time. 

There are two commands that have some Launchpad-specific integration,
but that integration is completely optional and those commands are still
perfectly usable without Launchpad. There is also no hard dependency on
python-launchpadlib.

Cheers,

Jelmer


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1350044879.7083.18.camel@gwenhwyvar

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Hideki Yamane]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:22:06 +0200
Benjamin Drung  wrote:
> How does bzr-builddeb depend on Launchpad? bzr is integrated into
> Launchpad, but you can use bzr without Launchpad as every other DVCS.

 Just because I don't imagine use bzr without LP ;)
 Yes, it can be used as you've pointed out, but using VCS is not only 
 tools but also includes workflow, I think. So I said it relies on LP.

-- 
Regards,

 Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
 http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20121012214007.bb9829657eb41d4ca5aa6...@debian.or.jp

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Jelmer Vernooij]

On Fri, 2012-10-12 at 21:40 +0900, Hideki Yamane wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:22:06 +0200
> Benjamin Drung  wrote:
> > How does bzr-builddeb depend on Launchpad? bzr is integrated into
> > Launchpad, but you can use bzr without Launchpad as every other DVCS.
> 
>  Just because I don't imagine use bzr without LP ;)
>  Yes, it can be used as you've pointed out, but using VCS is not only 
>  tools but also includes workflow, I think. So I said it relies on LP.
The workflow doesn't have to involve Launchpad either - I'm not using
Launchpad at all for my Debian packages. Just because the majority of
Bazaar users host their branches on Launchpad, doesn't mean that a
Bazaar workflow has to involve Launchpad. 

Similarly, just because a lot of Git users host their branches on Github
doesn't mean that Git is unusable without Github.

Cheers,

Jelmer


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1350046001.7083.27.camel@gwenhwyvar

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Hideki Yamane]

On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:46:41 +0200
Jelmer Vernooij  wrote:
> The workflow doesn't have to involve Launchpad either - I'm not using
> Launchpad at all for my Debian packages. Just because the majority of
> Bazaar users host their branches on Launchpad, doesn't mean that a
> Bazaar workflow has to involve Launchpad. 

 Okay. I'm wrong.

 BTW, most people uses svn or git, what is prefer you to use bazaar?
 I'm curious.

-- 
Regards,

 Hideki Yamane henrich @ debian.or.jp/org
 http://wiki.debian.org/HidekiYamane


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/20121012215213.f9ff9b7bb0c6da2f4e410...@debian.or.jp

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

On 12 October 2012 13:52, Hideki Yamane  wrote:
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2012 14:46:41 +0200
> Jelmer Vernooij  wrote:
>> The workflow doesn't have to involve Launchpad either - I'm not using
>> Launchpad at all for my Debian packages. Just because the majority of
>> Bazaar users host their branches on Launchpad, doesn't mean that a
>> Bazaar workflow has to involve Launchpad.
>
>  Okay. I'm wrong.
>
>  BTW, most people uses svn or git, what is prefer you to use bazaar?
>  I'm curious.
>

well the fact that it works nice out of the box and has nice command
line syntax.

pristine tarball is on by default.
auto detects: native/non-native and full source vs debian/ dir only
packaging by default
auto fetches tarballs: from the pristine tar, from apt, from servers
with get-orig-tarball, with uscan
builds packages in a sane way, even if you have uncommited changes:
bzr bd (for debuild), bzr bd -S (for src package only)
Simple to make it split-mode: e.g. if you are both upstream and
packager, you can do $ bzr bd --split, which will create original
tarball sans debian dir and build proper non-native package (this is
very hard to do with other tools)
bzr-bd supports merging packages really well when you fork sid &
experimental and what to keep both forks in sync, or finally fold
experimental into sid, without loosing changelogs.
(BTW I hate how some maintainers do not keep NMU changelog entries)
bzr-bd can deal with quilt patches sensibly by auto applying &
removing them depending on your preference, the default is sane as
well.

also great support on ubuntu-udd mailing list and ubuntu-motu irc
channels using it for most core packages in ubuntu helps as well.

The list goes on =)

With svn/git/hg/mnt-buildpackage I have yet to see all of these little
features work so well out of the box with no or little configuration.

I wish hg-queues would be better integrated into hg-buildpackage, or
bzr-bd had pipes/looms support for top class quilt patch management.
But none other tools get it right either.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/CANBHLUicU2BJYe7x4HNQQPwT4Q1=24txl8pn_byqnuiov6n...@mail.gmail.com

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Charles Plessy]

Le Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:06:11PM +0200, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
> Am Freitag, den 12.10.2012, 10:04 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
> 
> https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/Popularity_of_bzr-builddeb_and_dh-make/
> 
> The poll will be closed in one week (if enough votes are collected).

Hello everybody,

if the point is to have a package that pulls everything one needs when doing
random work in Debian (as opposed with working specifically in one team where
it is predictable which helpers are used and which are not), then I do not
understand the point of not including *-buildpackage and dh-make, which are
tiny regarding to most other things that mk-builddeps will pull in later.

I think that it is exactly the case where we should not vote.  Unless the
wheight of bzr and dh-make is unbearable to otherwise users of packaging-dev,
even if the majority do not use them, what is the harm recommending them ?
Not to mention that there is no evidence that the people who vote for or
against recommending them are really using packaging-dev...

Cheers,

-- 
Charles Plessy
Tsurumi, Kanagawa, Japan


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20121012151034.ga15...@falafel.plessy.net

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Barry Warsaw]

On Oct 12, 2012, at 09:13 PM, Hideki Yamane wrote:

> bzr-builddeb is, well, it seems that is useful in UDD (Ubuntu Distributed
> Development, as Ubuntu packaging guide says) way, but now it heavily relies
> on Launchpad in my point of view. And, packaging-dev can specify
> vendor-specific Recommends/Suggest in its rules, then use it for Ubuntu is
> meaningful.
>
> (Well, LP is quite nice and Debian should consider to introduce its good
> point (user friendly web interface, etc), but I don't want to depend on it,
> sorry).

Now, clearly I am biased, but I generally use bzr-builddeb even when
developing changes targeted directly for Debian, because I really like the
workflow and much prefer bzr over the alternatives.  When the Launchpad
importer is up-to-date for a particular Debian package[*], everything works
nicely and quickly, and I've even managed to make quilt work mostly
non-painfully.

I accept that others have different, completely valid opinions on the matter.

-Barry

[*] which is actually more likely with Debian branches than Ubuntu branches
because Ubuntu developers will almost never push to debianlp: branches.


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Barry Warsaw]

On Oct 12, 2012, at 02:22 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:

>How does bzr-builddeb depend on Launchpad? bzr is integrated into
>Launchpad, but you can use bzr without Launchpad as every other DVCS.

$ bzr branch debianlp:mypackage

is one way to use Launchpad with bzr for Debian effectively.  It's certainly
not *required*, but often works out pretty nicely.

Cheers,
-Barry


signature.asc
Description: PGP signature

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[John Paul Adrian Glaubitz]

On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:

> On Oct 12, 2012, at 02:22 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> 
>> How does bzr-builddeb depend on Launchpad? bzr is integrated into
>> Launchpad, but you can use bzr without Launchpad as every other DVCS.
> 
> $ bzr branch debianlp:mypackage
> 
> is one way to use Launchpad with bzr for Debian effectively.  It's certainly
> not *required*, but often works out pretty nicely.

And how do I use bzr *without* Launchpad when I don't want to?

I'm not against LP per se, but I don't like tools limiting my choices in 
development that way.

Adrian

--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/bc4bd80d-1d13-4c4f-bf61-060e5d651...@physik.fu-berlin.de

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Paul Tagliamonte]

On Wed, Oct 17, 2012 at 04:05:10AM +0200, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:
> 
> > On Oct 12, 2012, at 02:22 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> > 
> >> How does bzr-builddeb depend on Launchpad? bzr is integrated into
> >> Launchpad, but you can use bzr without Launchpad as every other DVCS.
> > 
> > $ bzr branch debianlp:mypackage
> > 
> > is one way to use Launchpad with bzr for Debian effectively.  It's certainly
> > not *required*, but often works out pretty nicely.
> 
> And how do I use bzr *without* Launchpad when I don't want to?

man bzr -- look for "bzr init-repository LOCATION"

> 
> I'm not against LP per se, but I don't like tools limiting my choices in 
> development that way.

You know we have bzr.d.o? - http://anonscm.debian.org/bzr/

> 
> Adrian
> 
> --
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
> Archive: 
> http://lists.debian.org/bc4bd80d-1d13-4c4f-bf61-060e5d651...@physik.fu-berlin.de
> 

HTH.

Cheery-bye,
  Paul

-- 
 .''`.  Paul Tagliamonte 
: :'  : Proud Debian Developer
`. `'`  4096R / 8F04 9AD8 2C92 066C 7352  D28A 7B58 5B30 807C 2A87
 `- http://people.debian.org/~paultag


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Re: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make)

[Dmitrijs Ledkovs]

On 17 October 2012 03:05, John Paul Adrian Glaubitz
 wrote:
> On Oct 17, 2012, at 1:03 AM, Barry Warsaw  wrote:
>
>> On Oct 12, 2012, at 02:22 PM, Benjamin Drung wrote:
>>
>>> How does bzr-builddeb depend on Launchpad? bzr is integrated into
>>> Launchpad, but you can use bzr without Launchpad as every other DVCS.
>>
>> $ bzr branch debianlp:mypackage
>>
>> is one way to use Launchpad with bzr for Debian effectively.  It's certainly
>> not *required*, but often works out pretty nicely.
>
> And how do I use bzr *without* Launchpad when I don't want to?
>
> I'm not against LP per se, but I don't like tools limiting my choices in 
> development that way.
>
> Adrian

Here is documentation on using bzr *without* Launchpad specifically
for packaging:
http://jameswestby.net/bzr/builddeb/user_manual/

Note that none of the tutorial has launchpad in it.

There is one place where it offers you to merge upstream bzr branch +
with pristine-tar delta on top, but that is optional.

Regards,

Dmitrijs.


-- 
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Archive: 
http://lists.debian.org/canbhlugrwejfdei+xcach+2p3thnbk7eis3pmkigju6bovq...@mail.gmail.com

Vote result (was: Poll (was: Popularity of bzr-builddeb and dh-make))

[Benjamin Drung]

Hi,

the week is over and here are the results from the vote:
There were 64 participants in total.

dh-make
===

46 people want dh-make recommended.
27 people (+ 3 with a question mark) want dh-make suggested.
58 people voted for (at least) one of the above options.

Recommending dh-make instead of suggesting was the clear winner. I will
move dh-make from Suggests to Recommends in packaging-dev.

bzr-builddeb


8 people (+ 3 with a question mark) want bzr-builddeb recommended.
30 people (+ 10 with a question mark) want bzr-builddeb suggested.
44 people voted for (at least) one of the above options.

What will I do?

Am Samstag, den 13.10.2012, 00:10 +0900 schrieb Charles Plessy:
> Le Fri, Oct 12, 2012 at 12:06:11PM +0200, Benjamin Drung a écrit :
> > Am Freitag, den 12.10.2012, 10:04 +0800 schrieb Paul Wise:
> > 
> > https://dudle.inf.tu-dresden.de/Popularity_of_bzr-builddeb_and_dh-make/
> > 
> > The poll will be closed in one week (if enough votes are collected).
> 
> Hello everybody,
> 
> if the point is to have a package that pulls everything one needs when doing
> random work in Debian (as opposed with working specifically in one team where
> it is predictable which helpers are used and which are not), then I do not
> understand the point of not including *-buildpackage and dh-make, which are
> tiny regarding to most other things that mk-builddeps will pull in later.
> 
> I think that it is exactly the case where we should not vote.  Unless the
> wheight of bzr and dh-make is unbearable to otherwise users of packaging-dev,
> even if the majority do not use them, what is the harm recommending them ?
> Not to mention that there is no evidence that the people who vote for or
> against recommending them are really using packaging-dev...

I agree with your opinion. packaging-dev targets especially newcomers
and should give them a good starting point. It should allow doing random
work in Debian and therefore recommends packages that are used by a
portion (could be lower than 50%) of Debian developers. For example,
gnome-pkg-tools and pkg-kde-tools are recommended. Not every developer
touches a GNOME or KDE packages, but these desktop environments are
important enough to recommend these helpers.

The poll showed that bzr-builddeb is wanted by a portion of developers
(18 % up to 25 %), but not by most of them. Therefore I will keep
bzr-builddeb recommended until someone has another good reason to demote
the package to suggests.

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer


signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part