[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?)
Fri, 13 Feb 2015 09:48:59 +0100
KMail/4.14.4 (Linux/3.11.10-25-desktop; KDE/4.14.4; x86_64; ; )
Am Donnerstag, 12. Februar 2015, 13:36:04 schrieb Emilien Klein:
> > - 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.
That was the status 3 years ago! Nowadays not only RPMlint runs for RPM, but
as well lintian for Debian packages run after each build.
Cant say much about the debian build process, up to you to decide.
All SUSE distros (open and SLES/SLED) use OBS to build...can't be that bad.
> 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.
> 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.
> P.S.: to outsiders, it might seem we are fighting on this topic, but this
> is a true example of why Free/Open Source Software is better: we discuss
> our differences in point of view in the open.
Thats perfectly fine with me, and I wish that the debian / ubuntu users get
easy-to-install packages in a way that the SUSE users already have. And Gentoo
That will ease the use of gnuhealth. That's what counts in the end of the day.