Pull in some functionality from stdeb

Bug #545361 reported by Barry Warsaw
8
This bug affects 1 person
Affects Status Importance Assigned to Milestone
bzr-builddeb
Triaged
Wishlist
Unassigned

Bug Description

For standard Python packages with a setup.py, it would be nice if bzr-builddeb could pull in some of stdeb's functionality for creating the initial packaging layout (e.g. via 'bzr dh-make'?).

stdeb lives here: http://github.com/astraw/stdeb

stdeb mostly does the right thing, except it does it in the wrong place. I.e. it doesn't know anything about bzr branches so it creates the debian directory instead the package-version directory in the cwd. This means you have to move debian/ up a couple of parents to situate it correctly.

However stdeb has some advantages:

* it doesn't ask you any questions (jfdi ftw \o/)
* it creates a more correct debian/control file based on setup.py hints
* (stdeb doesn't pick the right debian/copyright file based on setup.py, but bzr-builddeb should!)
* it removes all the crufty .ex files and what not
* (stdeb doesn't initialize the debian/watch file, but bzr-builddeb should!)

Revision history for this message
Elliot Murphy (statik) wrote :

There is also another competing package skeleton builder tool: /usr/bin/python-mkdebian.

http://bazaar.launchpad.net/~python-distutils-extra-hackers/python-distutils-extra/debian/annotate/head:/debian/local/python-mkdebian

Revision history for this message
James Westby (james-w) wrote : Re: [Bug 545361] [NEW] Pull in some functionality from stdeb

On Tue, 23 Mar 2010 19:38:07 -0000, Barry Warsaw <email address hidden> wrote:
> Public bug reported:
>
> For standard Python packages with a setup.py, it would be nice if bzr-
> builddeb could pull in some of stdeb's functionality for creating the
> initial packaging layout (e.g. via 'bzr dh-make'?).
>
> stdeb lives here: http://github.com/astraw/stdeb
>
> stdeb mostly does the right thing, except it does it in the wrong place.
> I.e. it doesn't know anything about bzr branches so it creates the
> debian directory instead the package-version directory in the cwd. This
> means you have to move debian/ up a couple of parents to situate it
> correctly.

I will look in to what it does more carefully.

> However stdeb has some advantages:
>
> * it doesn't ask you any questions (jfdi ftw \o/)
> * it creates a more correct debian/control file based on setup.py hints
> * (stdeb doesn't pick the right debian/copyright file based on setup.py, but bzr-builddeb should!)
> * it removes all the crufty .ex files and what not
> * (stdeb doesn't initialize the debian/watch file, but bzr-builddeb should!)

These would be great things to do, but I'm not going to implement any
of this specific functionality in bzr-builddeb.

If we decide that stdeb should be used for python packages then I want
those improvements to be done in stdeb. I'm all for helping with that
though.

Ideally this bug would be fixed with dh_make (what we currenly call)
handling python packages better, either by calling stdeb, or them
merging. Failing that we could call stdeb if the package looks like a
python one.

Thanks,

James

Revision history for this message
Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote :

I think we can do more than use dh-make; a problem with dh-make is that its one-shot. Tracking setup.py would be per-update, not from-scratch-each-time.

Changed in bzr-builddeb:
status: New → Triaged
importance: Undecided → Wishlist
Revision history for this message
Robert Collins (lifeless) wrote :

I think bzr-builddeb's role in this might be to supply a couple of relevant hooks, or metadata to them, if the hooks are supplied by e.g. dpkg.

To post a comment you must log in.
This report contains Public information  
Everyone can see this information.

Other bug subscribers

Remote bug watches

Bug watches keep track of this bug in other bug trackers.