bzr-check-dependencies to get pqm depedencies under control

[Max Bowsher]

On 24/11/10 13:01, Vincent Ladeuil wrote:
>>>>>> Max Bowsher <maxb at f2s.com> writes:
> 
> <snip/>
> 
>     > 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.
> 
> Meh, the feedback I got from our admin was: 'pretty damn close'.

Heh. Well, if we find anything missing we can add it later.

>     >> Now I'd like feedback about:
>     >> 
>     >> - should we define another bzr-build-dependencies package excluding
>     >> python-docutils ?
> 
>     > Who would be the target audience?
> 
> People wanting to run the test suite in a setup as close as possible as
> the pqm one.

Hmm. python-docutils does not seem to be a particularly heavy-weight
dependency. I would suggest it's not worth the maintenance overhead.

>     >> - 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.
> 
> Ok.
> 
>     > I don't really understand what Tom means in the bug.
> 
> So the long story is that it was considered to put these dependencies
> into bzr build deps.
> 
> Now, the case at point was adding python-sphinx which doesn't exist for
> hardy. This requires providing a package for hardy. But before adding
> this package to the bzr build deps, we need to change bzr to use it. And
> landing such a change requires that python-sphinx is installed on pqm...

Ahhhhhh. You mean python distutils builddeps here, not Debian package
builddeps?


>     >> - 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.
> 
> Bah, this makes me think that it's related to the pam package or the
> pam-submit plugin and also that it is specific to pqm which is not
> entirely true, it helps setting up a host to be as close as possible to
> pqm.
> 
>     > 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.
> 
> <shudder>
> 
> bzr-dependencies-for-make-check-on-bzr-pqm-like-setups-including-python2.4
> :-/ ?
> 
> bzr-landing-depedencies ?

bzr-landing-dependencies would work for me. Or bzr-merge-robot-dependencies.

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/db169646/attachment.pgp