followup to comment on

Faheem Mitha faheem at
Wed Oct 3 09:48:08 UTC 2012

Hi Peter,

It's been a couple of weeks. I'd appreciate a followup. I'd like to get 
this thing wrapped up. Followups from anyone else would also be 
appreciated, of course.

                                                         Regards, Faheem

On Sun, 16 Sep 2012, Faheem Mitha wrote:

> On Tuesday, September 4 2012, Peter Van Eynde wrote:
>> Hi Faheem,
>> sorry to be a bit critical, it is an impressive package as-is
>> already. you did a and .m4 seem to come
>> from somewhere. What is the license on those files? The copyright file
>> says:
>> Files: debian/*
>> Copyright: 2012 Faheem Mitha
>> License: LLGPL
>> is this correct?
>> I would use the ccl-bootstrap setup, but simply make CCL version X
>> build-depend on CCL version X.
>> As to why:
>> The auto-builders will try to download the source package as-is and
>> try to build it again, this will fail due to the bootstrapping
>> procedure. I understand the reasons for them, but the bootstrapping of
>> CCL should be hidden from the debian's view of reality, we should have
>> a CCL package that compiles itself. The fact that you have to
>> bootstrap the new package should be work behind the curtains,
>> explained in the README.source ;)
>> This implies also that you should not use the m4 based setup or make
>> certain that the files in the source package are the right ones for
>> the auto-builders. From experience I suggest to avoid confusion by
>> having separate files for the bootstrapping, not involved in the
>> normal debian building process.
>> Best regards, Peter
> Hi Peter,
> First, I didn't see this message, which you posted at
>, till recently, otherwise I
> would have replied sooner. did not email me the
> comment, as I would have expected, and I just happened to check the
> page.
> I'm not sure whether the web page is a suitable place for 
> discussions, but for now I'd adding my reply there. Please advise about the 
> correct procedure. I'm also emailing you and CCing pkg-common-lisp-devel and 
> Christoph Egger.
> Yes, all the shell scripts in the debian directory, including the m4
> versions, are under the LLGPL license. This is per my understanding
> that the Debian packaging should be under the same license as the
> upstream source.
> Thanks for the feedback, but if you want me to make changes, you'll
> have to be more explicit about what they should be. I don't know how
> the Debian autobuilders work.
> As I attempted to outline in the README.source, my plan with the m4
> script is to have two versions of the rules, control and
> files, which can be used to build the
> packages in two ways - see the section "The two ways to build this
> package".
> The way I imagined this being used when building the package in a
> Debian context, for example by a sponsor was as follows.
> 1) Build the ccl-bootstrap binary package from the ccl-bootstrap
> sources. Then use that to build the ccl binary package from the ccl
> sources. Note that the default version of the rules, control and
> files in the debian directory is the
> version for building from ccl-bootstrap.
> 2) Now we have a ccl binary package, and can use it to build the
> source again, but this time with the version that build depends on the
> new ccl binary package. As mentioned in the README that version can be
> generated with
> BOOTSTRAP=false sh
> Now, as regards what you want. You write
> "I would use the ccl-bootstrap setup, but simply make CCL version X
> build-depend on CCL version X."
> I'm unclear what this means, and the rest of your explanation is also unclear 
> to me. Before having a ccl to build-depend on, one needs to have a ccl 
> package. And how would one use the ccl-bootstrap setup while huild-depending 
> on ccl? Perhaps you could explicitly lay out the steps you imagine going 
> through, similar to how I did above?
>                                                           Regards, Faheem

More information about the pkg-common-lisp-devel mailing list