[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: [Health-dev] OT: gnuhealth distro packaging (was: Should distributio
Re: [Health-dev] OT: gnuhealth distro packaging (was: Should distribution packaging solve the installation/configuration issues our users are having?)
Thu, 12 Feb 2015 15:16:34 +0100
* Emilien Klein: " Re: [Health-dev] OT: gnuhealth distro packaging (was: Should
distribution packaging solve the installation/configuration issues our users
are having?)" (Thu, 12 Feb 2015 13:36:04 +0100):
> 2015-02-12 12:44 GMT+01:00 Mathias Behrle <address@hidden>:
> > * Axel Braun: " Re: [Health-dev] Should distribution packaging solve the
> > installation/configuration issues our users are having?" (Wed, 11 Feb
> > 2015
> > 10:41:43 +0100):
> > > OpenBuildService is OpenSource and free to use. It builds Debian and
> > Ubuntu
> > > as well (also on the reference server, build.opensuse.org), and by this
> > can
> > > use as a common repository.
> > Axel just asked me per PM, if and why I wouldn't use OBS for Debian
> > gnuhealth
> > packages and I am also answering here to share with the list.
> > My points in primarily not using OBS in descending order:
> > - For the build of Debian packages I am using the Debian toolchain,
> > whenever it
> > is not possible to use the Debian infrastructure itself. This gives me
> > the
> > background of a well established and proven build system with extended
> > sanity
> > tests.
> > - I don't know OBS, therefore following remarks may be FUD:
> > - The one or two times I wanted to try it was very unresponsive, I
> > saved my time in not trying further.
> > - I doubt, that the infrastructure as built on debian.tryton.org is
> > possible to do on OBS.
> > - I doubt, that OBS does the sanity testings (lintian, piuparts), which
> > are
> > part of the quality process on debian.org.
> > - Finally I just trust more in Debian native tools than a third party
> > build
> > service.
> I completely agree with Mathias' points.
> OpenSuse's Open Build Service *can* create Debian packages that will
> install and provide whatever code/functionality you want, but none of the
> QA/conventions that have made Debian so robust and stable over the last 20+
> years are enforced. Just to give an example, there are automated bug
> reports that are created when the package is automatically rebuilt on all
> the platforms that Debian supports (and those are roughly said the largest
> number that any Linux distro supports), which will let you know if your
> package, or any of its dependencies, have any problems.
> When OBS was introduced at FOSDEM (was it in 2012?), I attended the
> original introduction talk, and asked if the packages built would
> enforce/use Debian's QA. Answer was just No.
> Plus, the whole point of making a *Debian* package is to be able to install
> it with a simple `apt-get install`, on Debian or *any* of its numerous
> distributions. (and yes Mathias, this is also why I'm not super excited
> about building the package inside debian.tryton.org, which is rougly a
> software-specific PPA (in the Ubuntu world) which still requires you to
> play with your /etc/apt/sources.list.
You don't need to be super excited, I am neither. Just provide me the
infrastructure and personal ressources on debian.org to be able to serve our
- a project like Tryton releasing quite more often stable series as well as
- a project like Tryton providing bug fix releases up to two years for its
and I will be the first one to use them.
BTW even if we will have on Debian some sort of PPA-like repositories this
will still need to play with sources lists. I don't see that point.
> Adding back in the debian-med list to have all interested parties up to
> date. Will do so as well with my answer on the other email chain.
Thanks for using and adding in future rather
<address@hidden> for all Tryton related discussions in
Gilgenmatten 10 A
UStIdNr: DE 142009020
PGP/GnuPG key availabable from any keyserver, ID: 0x8405BBF6
Description: Digitale Signatur von OpenPGP