|
Home > Archive > Debian Developers > June 2007 > standardizing pre-build maintainer actions
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
standardizing pre-build maintainer actions
|
|
| Stefano Zacchiroli 2007-06-27, 1:22 pm |
| On Sun, Jun 10, 2007 at 08:40:21AM +0900, Junichi Uekawa wrote:
I like the idea in general, but I would rather focus on ...
[vbcol=seagreen]
> [web->package]
>
> 2. upstream FAQ page is updated through 'wget' into the package source
> from time-to-time.
My feeling is that we, maintainers body, have in some packages the need
to do "stuff" before building a package, that this "stuff" often
encompasses accessing the network, and also that the result of "stuff"
needs to be committed in our versioning system (or at the very minimum
to become part of the new Debian source package we are going to upload).
A couple of example from packages I maintain:
- vim-scripts needs to download the HTML pages of all shipped addons in
order to use them as user documentation available under /usr/share/doc
- vim needs to download upstream patches for micro releases which are
stored in the source package and applied at build time
I guess a lot of us have similar needs. What about defining a
standardized debian/rules target which should take care of similar
stuff?
Once we have it one can imagine, for example, a CDBS rules file which
implement a dependency of this target as performing the one-way
synchronization asked by Junichi using a mapping from package names to
wiki pages, exploiting the docbook export, and so on and so forth ...
Comments?
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
| |
| Frank Küster 2007-06-27, 1:22 pm |
| Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> I guess a lot of us have similar needs. What about defining a
> standardized debian/rules target which should take care of similar
> stuff?
We already have that: get-orig-source.=20=20
If the upstream-provided contents change regularly, this should also
give a new upstream version, however called. Adding manually selected,
carefully considered patches is a different thing.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Z=
=FCrich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
| |
| Russ Allbery 2007-06-27, 1:22 pm |
| Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:34:42PM +0200, Frank K=FCster wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Documented where?
Debian Policy 4.9.
--=20
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
| |
| Stefano Zacchiroli 2007-06-27, 1:22 pm |
| On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:34:42PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
>
> We already have that: get-orig-source.
Documented where?
Anyhow I was thinking at something more generic that only getting orig
sources ... let's call it "maintainer-update"? don't know, I suck at
names.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
| |
| Frank Küster 2007-06-27, 1:22 pm |
| Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 05:34:42PM +0200, Frank K=FCster wrote:
[...][vbcol=seagreen]
> Anyhow I was thinking at something more generic that only getting orig
> sources
I don't think a Debian diff.gz should contain arbitrary updates from
upstream.=20
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Z=
=FCrich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
| |
| Stefano Zacchiroli 2007-06-27, 7:20 pm |
| On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:08:08PM +0200, Frank Küster wrote:
> I don't think a Debian diff.gz should contain arbitrary updates from
> upstream.
I didn't imply that it should be some other kind of updates, but
generally some work that should be done before building the package. But
probably it is not such a widespread need, sorry for the noise. And
thanks to Russ for pointing to the policy, I wasn't aware that
get-orig-source was actually standardized.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
| |
| Frank Küster 2007-06-28, 7:30 am |
| Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 27, 2007 at 08:08:08PM +0200, Frank K=FCster wrote:
>
> I didn't imply that it should be some other kind of updates, but
> generally some work that should be done before building the package. But
> probably it is not such a widespread need,=20
I don't think it's a question of "widespread need". I think the
examples you gave (documentation updates and "microrelease patches")
should not be treated this way. Either you take all that upstream
provides at that point in time - then make a new upstream version (and
use the date as (part of) the version number). Or review them
individually, then you don't need a makefile target.
Regards, Frank
--=20
Frank K=FCster
Single Molecule Spectroscopy, Protein Folding @ Inst. f. Biochemie, Univ. Z=
=FCrich
Debian Developer (teTeX/TeXLive)
|
|
|
|
|