Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?

[Adam Katz <an...@khopis.com>]

First, I'm a big Debian fan.  If we're including the RPM stuff, we
should include the DEB stuff.  I agree with Darxus in that it is indeed
quite useful and doesn't create clutter or wasted bits since it is in
its own well-marked directory and is very small.

That said, its presence in our releases implies WE are supporting it.
While I would prefer it stay, I have to ultimately agree with Mark (who
happens to also be the FreeBSD package maintainer) when he said:

> The package maintainers know their job and their distribution most
> intimately and should have a full jurisdiction over their packaging.

We have the RPM information in our source tree.  We also have one of the
Fedora (upstream -1) packagers with commit permissions (Warren).  If he
is willing to keep it in sync, we can keep it.  Otherwise, it will grow
stale and should therefore be pruned (or at least marked as such).
https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamassassin

We have the DEB pieces in our source tree too, though Noah Meyerhans,
the Debian (upstream -1) maintainer is not an SA developer.  Duncan
Findley is both a Debian and SA developer, but seems dormant in both.
I'm behind the ball in my plan to get Debian developer status.  Based on
this, we should probably remove the debian directory.
http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/spamassassin.html

The clutter point is well taken too; even assuming another sufficiently
popular system has a similarly small and segregated footprint and a
maintainer willing to sync things up, there's the question of how
valuable it is.  RPM and DEB are special cases because of large number
of derivatives that pull from Fedora or Debian in addition to the
non-derivatives that go direct, like Mandriva, SUSE, and Fink (OS X).

Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?

[Daniel McDonald <da...@austinenergy.com>]

On 5/16/11 4:46 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com> wrote:

> 
>> That would prevent the create-package-from-tarball scripts from functioning,
> Can you elaborate on this statement?  How would a contrib directory
> break something?  Is it because they would see the existing .deb file
> (for example) in a subdirectory?

No, because the packaging files are looking in specific directories.  For
example, rpmbuild -ta looks inside the tarball in the ./redhat directory for
a .spec file, and uses that to create an rpm.  If the .spec is in a
different directory, then rpmbuild -ta won't find it. The user would then
need to manually unpack the tarball, dig through the contrib directory,
massage the .spec and re-pack the tarball in the format that rpmbuild is
expecting.  

At that point, it's easier to grab a .spec file from a known good src rpm,
make the two or three edits required for a new version, and run rpmbuild -ba


>> and would be the least desirable of all solutions.  My preference would be
>> to discard Debian and RedHat directories completely and let the package
>> maintainers do their own job.
> I don't disagree but I'd like to see something that makes everyone happy
> if possible.

-- 
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281

Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?

["Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>]

> That would prevent the create-package-from-tarball scripts from functioning,
Can you elaborate on this statement?  How would a contrib directory 
break something?  Is it because they would see the existing .deb file 
(for example) in a subdirectory?
> and would be the least desirable of all solutions.  My preference would be
> to discard Debian and RedHat directories completely and let the package
> maintainers do their own job.
I don't disagree but I'd like to see something that makes everyone happy 
if possible.

Regards,
KAM

Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?

[Daniel McDonald <da...@austinenergy.com>]

On 5/16/11 4:00 PM, "Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com> wrote:

> Darxus,
> 
> I think you started the chain to update the debian files and
> unfortunately, we now have Warren, Mark, Noah and Myself weighing in
> recommending that the debian (AND I believe the redhat stuff) be removed.
> 
> One suggestion I have is to move the items to a contrib dir implying
> they are as-is and not supported.  Then perhaps even place them in a
> pre-3.3.2 (or pre-3.4.0 dir) and a <current release> dir so if we want
> to add the new debian files, they can go in that contrib directory.  And
> otherwise people know what is outdated and what hasn't been touched, etc.

That would prevent the create-package-from-tarball scripts from functioning,
and would be the least desirable of all solutions.  My preference would be
to discard Debian and RedHat directories completely and let the package
maintainers do their own job.

-- 
Daniel J McDonald, CCIE # 2495, CISSP # 78281

Re: [SA-dev] Updating debian build directory?

["Kevin A. McGrail" <KM...@PCCC.com>]

Darxus,

I think you started the chain to update the debian files and 
unfortunately, we now have Warren, Mark, Noah and Myself weighing in 
recommending that the debian (AND I believe the redhat stuff) be removed.

One suggestion I have is to move the items to a contrib dir implying 
they are as-is and not supported.  Then perhaps even place them in a 
pre-3.3.2 (or pre-3.4.0 dir) and a <current release> dir so if we want 
to add the new debian files, they can go in that contrib directory.  And 
otherwise people know what is outdated and what hasn't been touched, etc.

Regards,
KAM



On 5/16/2011 4:54 PM, Adam Katz wrote:
> First, I'm a big Debian fan.  If we're including the RPM stuff, we
> should include the DEB stuff.  I agree with Darxus in that it is indeed
> quite useful and doesn't create clutter or wasted bits since it is in
> its own well-marked directory and is very small.
>
> That said, its presence in our releases implies WE are supporting it.
> While I would prefer it stay, I have to ultimately agree with Mark (who
> happens to also be the FreeBSD package maintainer) when he said:
>
>> The package maintainers know their job and their distribution most
>> intimately and should have a full jurisdiction over their packaging.
> We have the RPM information in our source tree.  We also have one of the
> Fedora (upstream -1) packagers with commit permissions (Warren).  If he
> is willing to keep it in sync, we can keep it.  Otherwise, it will grow
> stale and should therefore be pruned (or at least marked as such).
> https://admin.fedoraproject.org/updates/spamassassin
>
> We have the DEB pieces in our source tree too, though Noah Meyerhans,
> the Debian (upstream -1) maintainer is not an SA developer.  Duncan
> Findley is both a Debian and SA developer, but seems dormant in both.
> I'm behind the ball in my plan to get Debian developer status.  Based on
> this, we should probably remove the debian directory.
> http://packages.qa.debian.org/s/spamassassin.html
>
> The clutter point is well taken too; even assuming another sufficiently
> popular system has a similarly small and segregated footprint and a
> maintainer willing to sync things up, there's the question of how
> valuable it is.  RPM and DEB are special cases because of large number
> of derivatives that pull from Fedora or Debian in addition to the
> non-derivatives that go direct, like Mandriva, SUSE, and Fink (OS X).
>