[buildd-tools-devel] Bug#859867: Bug#859867: Please add a package which automatically configures sbuild for Debian packaging

[Michael Stapelberg]

Sorry for the late reply.

On Tue, Apr 11, 2017 at 10:39 AM, Johannes Schauer <josch at debian.org> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> Quoting Michael Stapelberg (2017-04-08 11:28:12)
> > One area where sbuild sorely lacks is configuration, though: pbuilder is
> very
> > easy to set up, whereas sbuild requires reading through
> > https://wiki.debian.org/sbuild, performing a bunch of steps, only to
> end up
> > with a setup which works fine for unstable, but seems very clumsy when
> > building packages for experimental or backports.
> >
> > One solution to this issue that I can see is to add a new binary
> > package to src:sbuild which — possibly after a brief debconf prompt —
> > performs all the necessary steps to end up with a setup that just
> > works.
> >
> > What are your thoughts on this? Would patches be welcome to add such a
> > package?
>
> patches totally welcome! :D
>

Cool! I’ll see if I can whip up such a package by working through the wiki
page.


>
> This is a nice idea!
>
> Maybe these packages could be named sbuild-backend-${foo} where $foo is the
> respective backend? At first, a package sbuild-backend-schroot would be
> cool
> because schroot is the default backend. It would be nice if that would set
> up
> sbuild schroots for stable-backports, unstable and experimental. Maybe that
> package should also install and activate cron-jobs to regularly update
> those
> schroots?
>

Which other backends even are there, and do we really need to offer our
users that choice, when we’re talking about a package with sane defaults
for people who prefer not to make these choices right now? :)


>
> What irks me is, that this setup would be Debian specific. It doesn't make
> much
> sense for Debian's downstreams to have have schroots for Debian. Maybe the
> distribution name should be part of the package name? Or maybe it should be
> easy for downstreams that care to override the set of distributions the
> schroots are created for?
>

Putting Debian into the package name seems reasonable.

How about sbuild-debian-dev-setup?

I originally thought of sbuild-debian-setup, but it could be confused to
mean “a setup which reflects Debian’s official setup”, i.e. the buildds.

The “setup” suffix to me conveys that this package offers only
configuration, not new software. Perhaps there’s a more idiomatic term for
that in Debian?


>
> Thanks!
>
> cheers, josch
>



-- 
Best regards,
Michael
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/buildd-tools-devel/attachments/20170518/7fa98aed/attachment.html>