From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 X-GM-THRID: 6730113598409932800 X-Received: by 2002:a2e:504f:: with SMTP id v15mr2074092ljd.67.1567522776456; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 07:59:36 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: isar-users@googlegroups.com Received: by 2002:a19:1ce:: with SMTP id 197ls1567581lfb.11.gmail; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 07:59:35 -0700 (PDT) X-Google-Smtp-Source: APXvYqx4tSJH2rx0b94syugF8rP6rCk/Ub3ElFD/ZS+Ivmv9EiD8P+i6iB7xGms/UT4YlxV6eO1A X-Received: by 2002:a19:beca:: with SMTP id o193mr21300817lff.137.1567522775936; Tue, 03 Sep 2019 07:59:35 -0700 (PDT) ARC-Seal: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; t=1567522775; cv=none; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; b=Purs/eZtFl9ih9fKi8a6ZiZNErswSZaeEiL0ucDsPEicoNaeWRHNtQqUS9wZT6QWW6 uv+fR1C0sk8qAAR7EywA72n9WepK/LqrIN8rU0TpmCoTSGTO8pUHb86YC6bUiEGCEwQU h6isIGg8Ena04LkKiMDjA1YfPxDeCyqMAChBJV3rscjmRvD7chij32xmBTInyKqlYOqX 3bRI3O7k364iJ8+a1HdT9fHdi1OlM26d2u26jO1YocNJDbmyvVCJX09txUIHuOTA8jIk QD+al2jxxz4kYjapDzuaP08p9Ch4f7pI0E4f2IT2d2gBXA3MHYifx0j9WT1QiFefLdxD vQdw== ARC-Message-Signature: i=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=google.com; s=arc-20160816; h=user-agent:in-reply-to:content-disposition:mime-version:references :mail-followup-to:message-id:subject:to:from:date; bh=r9bbdvBbCAwz501x0qoQZg50st/OOUtyjN2C4GpETSI=; b=CS6EuSDYhZwxkPql2L9gVwFuBU+IuuwSgtGvGqCDztC5AXB8tDPlX7WG4fD2lrJzbi E4yF73vVDFTXUr4zf1qMhJak3jAF3XFemlmDRViDfbKMftgZrodU0dNK7K5odNCzVxMt uKC7nNmFIrwnWCqnSP8OHHnNqYqMN9KuNuCUhy2dRuCclegj0vX4g2+tG/LZkmj5cEvF DZJc7bmf0gJfj2OtwUzjsMZghI+y7FPFRmrZPyWSzL7trsIRCyvMsIyH2kVDOLLnRUvD RwLi0mbLq9h83cUgDxromS0GpgFLSJkv5PXV8LgBv1QvCsSsom0/NBcryNqpG3b5G1Jg l/dA== ARC-Authentication-Results: i=1; gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Return-Path: Received: from shymkent.ilbers.de (shymkent.ilbers.de. [85.214.156.166]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTPS id o30si552540lfi.0.2019.09.03.07.59.35 for (version=TLS1_2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-CHACHA20-POLY1305 bits=256/256); Tue, 03 Sep 2019 07:59:35 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) client-ip=85.214.156.166; Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=neutral (google.com: 85.214.156.166 is neither permitted nor denied by best guess record for domain of ibr@radix50.net) smtp.mailfrom=ibr@radix50.net Received: from yssyq.m.ilbers.de (host-80-81-17-52.static.customer.m-online.net [80.81.17.52]) (authenticated bits=0) by shymkent.ilbers.de (8.15.2/8.15.2/Debian-8) with ESMTPSA id x83ExX8C011600 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES256-GCM-SHA384 bits=256 verify=NOT) for ; Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:59:34 +0200 Date: Tue, 3 Sep 2019 16:59:32 +0200 From: Baurzhan Ismagulov To: isar-users@googlegroups.com Subject: Re: [RFC Kernel PATCH 1/1] builddeb: support creation of linux-perf packages Message-ID: <20190903145932.GD6062@yssyq.m.ilbers.de> Mail-Followup-To: isar-users@googlegroups.com References: <1566976653-174-1-git-send-email-Cedric_Hombourger@mentor.com> <1566976653-174-2-git-send-email-Cedric_Hombourger@mentor.com> <20190830155815.3042828c@md1za8fc.ad001.siemens.net> <4c350bba-d2c1-9689-b42f-9c18dcfb3e13@mentor.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4c350bba-d2c1-9689-b42f-9c18dcfb3e13@mentor.com> User-Agent: Mutt/1.10.1 (2018-07-13) X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.0 required=5.0 tests=ALL_TRUSTED,URIBL_BLOCKED autolearn=unavailable autolearn_force=no version=3.4.2 X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.4.2 (2018-09-13) on shymkent.ilbers.de X-TUID: CfWJGStAW2Mw Hello Cedric, On Tue, Sep 03, 2019 at 10:01:43AM +0200, Cedric Hombourger wrote: > Unfortunately Ubuntu does not use the same package structure ... > Anything comes to mind? > > Should we give up the idea of using builddeb and instead use our own > debian/{control,rules} in Isar? (Jan told me that you have started to > discuss/consider this) Thanks for summarizing the differences. I'm afraid there is no silver bullet, it will diverge. As I see it, the approach matrix is still the same: generic specific own complex simple repetitive upstream complex complex fragile fragile For a single downstream project, I'd choose own-specific at the cost of some repetition. I assume it to require less effort than upstream-generic. In my understanding, this is what Ubuntu does due to practical reasons. Unifying the three upstreams is a noble task, but I don't see anyone feeling inclined to solve that for the long-term. For Isar or a generic base layer on top of it, the effort mix will be different. Upstream-specific doesn't make sense, and upstream-generic is difficult due to the reasons in your mail. The alternative is copying own-specific. Given enough permutations, this will become unmanageable at some point (updating will be costly and error-prone). Start with own-generic via e.g. sed config -- and you end up with your own version of deb-pkg. So, here the question is how many variants one is going to ultimately have. For the generic case, I don't see approaches better than deb-pkg ATM. IMHO, it doesn't have to be ugly. They already support e.g. rpm; do they have variants for Fedora, SUSE, etc.? With kind regards, Baurzhan.