On 05/02/12 18:35, Josh Suereth wrote:
As I stated before, I feel requiring SBT to build without itself is like trying to build Debian without GCC.
Comparing this situation to "trying to build _gcc_ without _gcc_" would be a more fair comparison. (imho)
I'm sad to hear no future work will be done on official debian packages.
Thomas has made some efforts to understand the situation. And, he isn't saying that he will abandon the packaging effort. It is only "suspended" due to personal reasons.
However, I strongly feel scalac + sbt are two tools that should be able to dogfood using previous binaries. Why should we support two builds if one is good enough? If debian developers wish to support a make build for SBT, that's great. I'd prefer to make use of SBT when developing SBT. I'm pretty hazy on why there's any reason on why SBT cannot use itself to build itself for debian, redhat, macosx or any other platform.
It is quite understanble for a compiler to have a bootstrap phase where an old binary is used to build the new one. Usually, upstream ship an old binary to be able to achieve that. This technique completely and widely used. As an example, Scala uses the same technique. The situation with sbt is a bit different. It is quite uncommon for a build tool to bootstrap itself. TTBOMK, sbt is the only popular build tool that does bootstrapping. In Debian, we do not ship pre-built binaries in packages included in the "main" archive. Thomas is trying to fix this by making an experiment: build sbt w/o sbt. The approach seems natural but seems not easy (especially when you don't have upstream's support). I think that one way to resolve this issue is to do like Scala, i.e. ship pre-built binary is the source package to be able to bootstrap sbt. What we would like to have is a way to build sbt without requiring internet connection or external tools (be it sbt or another library). Is it possible to provide that? sbt would be still bootstrappable, but we would have a standard (i.e. an upstream supported way) to build sbt using what sbt's source package contains. I think that's the only external build dependency here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.
If necessary, I will provide my own apt repository, signed and validated, but built entirely with SBT to ensure we have a good story on debian. If the debian community wants us to have a make build and is willing to create/maintain it for SBT to be in 'core' debian, that's wonderful. Otherwise, I'll make sure there's a nice apt repository out there, built with sbt, for sbt.
I'm not sure I understand your point here. Do you propose to provide what Thomas is asking for (a way to build sbt w/o sbt)? I'm quite sure Thomas will step up to maintain that system if this is merged into sbt sources. Regards, -- Mehdi -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-wnpp-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4f2ed885.3070...@dogguy.org
