[maemo-developers] Public maemo repository
From: Kees Jongenburger kees.jongenburger at gmail.comDate: Mon Jul 30 15:03:53 EEST 2007
- Previous message: Public maemo repository
- Next message: Public maemo repository
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
On 7/30/07, Daniel Stone <daniel.stone at nokia.com> wrote: > On Fri, Jul 27, 2007 at 09:14:09PM +0200, ext Kees Jongenburger wrote: > > > Er, how is this different from Debian, where you have a number of > > > package descriptions and task definitions that sbuild/buildd/debuild > > > uses to build? (Bearing in mind that debian/rules is a Makefile, and > > > thus infinitely flexible.) > > > > What kind of step does a "user" have to take between creating it's own > > package and the sbuild/buildd/debuild aproach? isn't this hole > > open-source thingy about giving power to the user? > > It depends entirely on the tools. You could easily construct an > improved dh_make that required no editing of any files at all. It has > nothing to do with the packaging system itself, as cdbs's three-line > debian/rules files have shown. Hi I am really not trying to be annoying or anything I really am trying to understand. >From my point of view as "user" as you call them has no access to the sbuild/buildd/debuild system, they get an sdk and that's it, Creating an improved dh_make , recompiling the package to use the thumb instruction set or not, are simply not part of the things that can be done (or am i missing the big picture?) > > > Sounds like a recipe for crap packages to me (maybe OE's are good, I > > > don't actually know). If you want incredibly basic skeleton packages, > > > just use the dh_make template and ignore them, and the packages won't be > > > any good. If you want to fix them up so they conform to policy, are > > > more generally useful, are split as they should be, etc, then you'll > > > need to spend time on your packages. > > > > If you are using dh_make you are not using the "power" of the existing > > debian packages and you are in trouble > > Who was saying this? Using dh_make is fine. If you want your packages > to be good, then you should clean up the template a bit, yes. I guess it's fine as long as it's you own software you are packaging. I understand that one must put some effort in packaging. I was referring to the "missing" libs like some sdl packages or sqlite3 etc. I you run dh_make on those your a in trouble since different packagers will give the libs different names/options. Again am i missing the big picture or how do I get sqlite3 in maemo? > > > if you don't use dh_make and try to use upstream packages + patches > > you are in trouble because you are creating the chaos youself, You are > > also prooving that the initial "source" packaging was not sufficient > > for your need > > I don't see what you mean here? This is again about the differences between maemo .deb packages and mainstream packages they are not the same and maemo as community does not provide a place to upload those changes/patches. When nokia chooses to create a new distro people are constantly trying binnay packages of exiting app that where ported earlyer in the hope it sill works. IMHO not an optimal solution > > > > This is no different from ebuilds, spec files, or any packaging system > > > I've ever used. The only difference is that debian/ tends to be a > > > little more verbose for the skeleton case. But the core is the same: if > > > you want crap packages, then you can easily create them in any packaging > > > system. If you want good packages, then you need to spend a bit more > > > time. > > > > I think there is a big difference between those systems. Me as > > developer ,I have the same tools as you the packager (as I tend to > > call people who create packages) > > bsd ports,gentoo portage and oe contain meta packages. > > > > lets' face it what good did the packaging bring maemo until now? I > > don't understand I am still waisting my time with this packaging > > issue. > > The possibly to derive from an existing system, not having to invent our > own packages or tools to solve problems that have already been taken > care of long ago? :P I understand but just try to be on "my" side for a few minutes. I am experiencing the complexity of the debian packaging with the tweaks required for the maemo platform. I was not born as debian developer. I really did not care about repositories, free non-free stable unstable . I did not care about arch, I did not ask for dh_make. dpkg-xxx. All I really want is to be able to share software, and improve existing software for the arm platform (like sdl). The current packaging does not make it easy to do either. I hope that this will improve in the future. just having a public maemo repository is not enough. Greetings
- Previous message: Public maemo repository
- Next message: Public maemo repository
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]