Debian build #600

I know jgarzik didn't want this, but IMHO it belongs in the repo instead of (insert name of third party here)'s repo.

If the ubuntu/ubuntu ppa is to be linked on bitcoin.org (which I very much believe it should be), I would say its much better to have a debian folder in bitcoin's src, even if it just sits there and only one or two third-partys update it via pull requests instead of the core team keeping it up-to-date.

Note that this is essentially how the gitian scripts have been done for the past many releases, also just because a debian/ folder is here, doesn't mean any core devs have to deal with releases or the bitcoin/bitcoin ppa, it just makes the build process a bit more transparent and a bit more public.

Anyway, its open for discussion.

I don't see the harm in this

I don't have problems with adding this either. The provided files can be useful for other distributions as well.

Except I don't really see the point of the included patch; we could support using the system json-spirit in the build system, this would save the need for including a diff in the repository (which can run out of date, not apply cleanly anymore etc...)

The included patch isn't actually used (see debian/patches/series) it was added by the bitcoind debian maintainer and I just decided to leave it since it is disabled anyway.

"Wladimir J. van der Laan" reply@reply.github.com wrote:

I don't have problems with adding this either. The provided files can be useful for other distributions as well.

Except I don't really see the point of the included patch; we could support using the system json-spirit in the build system, this would save the need for including a diff in the repository (which can run out of date, not apply cleanly anymore etc...)

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #600 (comment)

Does this belong in the main repo? Or would another github repo be better (maybe 'bitcoin/distros'?)

I think there are arguments for and against including it in the main repository.

For:

• Many of us are using a debian-ish distribution, so having the files directly available (and versioned synchronously) aid in testing the debian package and debug issues like #595
• What applies to packaging for debian can also serve as an example for packaging for other distributions

Against:

• As the debian maintainer is not currently part of the core team, it will eternally be out of date. It now already includes patches and other files that are not used. There is something to be said for keeping the main repository lean and mean.
• If we made top-level directories for every distribution, we'd end up with total crazyness. Maybe moving it to contrib or even a separate repository makes sense. We could give the debian maintainer (and others) direct access there as well...

That said, quite a lot of open source packages have a "debian" directory in their main repository.

I dont care too much where it goes, but at build-time the debian folder has to be at the top level, so if you move it, builders have to shuffle it around to commit updates and build.

http://wiki.debian.org/DebianMentorsFaq#What.27s_wrong_with_upstream_shipping_a_debian.2BAC8_directory.3F

Ciao!

Well if debian itself thinks it's undesirable we can close this issue.

If upstream has a debian directory in their releases, you should contact them 
and ask if they can remove the debian/ directory from their tarball releases. There's no 
need to remove the debian directory from their revision control system (although if it's 
out of date they may decide to do so anyway), but at the very least the directory 
shouldn't appear in releases. If you are upstream yourself, well, you can ask yourself to do it.

The thing is, in this case the debian directory isn't for debian to use, it's for us.

"Wladimir J. van der Laan" reply@reply.github.com wrote:

Well if debian itself thinks it's undesirable we can close this issue.

If upstream has a debian directory in their releases, you should contact them and ask if they can remove the debian/ directory from their tarball releases. There's no need to remove the debian directory from their revision control system (although if it's out of date they may decide to do so anyway), but at the very least the directory shouldn't appear in releases. If you are upstream yourself, well, you can ask yourself to do it.

---

Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub: #600 (comment)

There's no need to remove the debian directory from their revision control system (although if it's out of date they may decide to do so anyway), but at the very least the directory shouldn't appear in releases.

If you think that having a debian/ directory is useful, you can keep it in Git (only in Git!) evenly.

Ciao!

As I previously stated, the reasoning for adding our own debian directory is for distributed control/updates to the build-methods for the bitcoin/bitcoin ppa. Without this, the debian directory is manged in (insert name of third party's tree here) which just becomes a mess (we used to do that for gitian builds, but people complained too much and gitian descriptors were merged upstream).

Debian's arguments against upstream debian directories are (IMHO) very weak. All they argue is that it makes debian diffs more complicated, but if you've actually used debian's package system, it really handles diffs very cleanly and the added effort for maintainers is absolutely non-existent.

Also, if people don't want debian in the top level of bitcoin anyway, we can easily just move it to contrib and not have to worry about conflicting with debian's suggestions.

yes, just move it to contrib, then it's in the tree and we don't have to remove it before release every time...

already did (though github wont update and show that if the pull is closed)