bzr-check-dependencies to get pqm depedencies under control

[Max Bowsher]

On 24/11/10 11:15, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
> Hi all,
> 
> We had some trouble last week getting python-testtools updated on our
> automated gatekeeper: pqm.
> 
> Our admins asked for a package
> (https://bugs.launchpad.net/bzr/+bug/667298) that will mention all
> dependencies needed to run:
> 
>   LANG=en_GB.utf8 make check PYTHON=python2.4
> 
> there (it's still hardy time there which we want to keep to check
> against python2.4 regressions).
> 
> I've created a 'bzr-check-dependencies' package containing:
> 
> Depends: ${misc:Depends},
>  libc6-dev,
>  python2.4,
>  python2.4-dev,
>  python-docutils,
>  python-paramiko,
>  python-pyrex,
>  python-testtools (>= 0.9.5),
>  subunit
> 
> And this address the issue.

Quoting from the bug:
> Starting with a VM seeded with a raw hardy
> ubuntu-8.04.4-desktop-amd64.iso

This probably wasn't the best starting point. It's unlikely the PQM
machine would be running a desktop installation. For the metapackage to
be fully tested, you would want to start with a minimal debootstrapped
chroot, or a minimal d-i (alternate CD) install.

> Now I'd like feedback about:
> 
> - should we define another bzr-build-dependencies package excluding
>   python-docutils ?

Who would be the target audience?

> - should we instead put these dependencies in a Build-Depends clause
>   (but see the bug report about the catch 22) ?

No. Metapackages don't need any of these things to build themselves.

I don't really understand what Tom means in the bug.

> - should I put this package in the proposed PPA or directly in the
>   stable one (where I think it should reside permanently if only because
>   we maintain up-to-date packages for subunit and python-testtools there
>   already) ?

To proposed and immediately copy it? I think we want to keep the package
list in proposed and stable identical for simplicity of reporting
unpromoted packages.

> - should I use another name (I chose 'check' as a reference to 'make
>   check' and explained the intent in the package description but I
>   wonder if people may be confused about 'bzr check') ?

I think we should call it bzr-pqm-dependencies.

The name 'bzr-check-dependencies' makes me think it is a tool for
checking dependencies, and, it's only because it's PQM that it wants
Python 2.4 - the average user of 'make check' doesn't necessarily want it.

Max.

-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: OpenPGP digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/bazaar/attachments/20101124/d715078c/attachment.pgp