I spent a while working on it off and on, but there is a decent amount of tweaking and other packaging work needed to get policy-compliant bazel packages. (E.G: There are quite a few binary JAR files shipped in the upstream tarball that don't necessarily match the versions in Debian).
I just didn't have the spare time, especially now that I have a kid, to sink into one package. (Also, FWIW, if you want to _create_ policy-compliant packages using bazel, there is a lot more work than just getting a policy-compliant bazel package, because bazel needs to understand debian multiarch compilers, standard build flags, etc). Cheers, Kyle Moffett On Fri, May 18, 2018 at 4:56 AM, Chris Lamb <la...@debian.org> wrote: > Chris Lamb wrote: > >> Kyle Moffett wrote: >> >> > > Well, if you could package Bazel… :) >> > >> > Unfortunately, there's more work than just "packaging" Bazel. Just to >> > package Bazel, the open issues are: >> >> […] >> >> Oh! My smiley was meant to represent how packaging Bazel is not a simple >> task and thus imply you were delaying for no obvious reason! Apologies >> that did not come across via email. >> >> > But... even with that, Bazel cannot be used to _build_ a Debian >> > package, because it does not create Debian-policy-compliant binaries >> >> Oh, can you elaborate on this? >> >> > [...] >> >> Thanks so much for clarifying the other issues; very useful for myself >> and for others coming across this bug report. >> >> If your opinionn should, for example, Roughtime try and rewrite the build >> system in the meantime/long-term? > > Gentle ping on this? > > > Best wishes, > > -- > ,''`. > : :' : Chris Lamb > `. `'` la...@debian.org / chris-lamb.co.uk > `-
