Debian Bug report logs - #639910
RFP: simple-build-tool -- for scala and java projects

Package: wnpp; Maintainer for wnpp is wnpp@debian.org;

Reported by: Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro>

Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:54:05 UTC

Severity: wishlist

Blocking fix for 660719: RFP: netlogo -- An agent-based programming language and integrated modeling environment., 660720: RFP: netlogo -- An agent-based programming language and integrated modeling environment.

Reply or subscribe to this bug.

Toggle useless messages

View this report as an mbox folder, status mbox, maintainer mbox


Report forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, thomas@koch.ro, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:54:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro>:
New Bug report received and forwarded. Copy sent to thomas@koch.ro, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org. (Wed, 31 Aug 2011 14:54:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #5 received at submit@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro>
To: Debian Bug Tracking System <submit@bugs.debian.org>
Subject: RFP: simple-build-tool -- build tool for Scala and mixed Scala/Java projects
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2011 16:51:10 +0200
Package: wnpp
Severity: wishlist

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA256

* Package name    : simple-build-tool
  Version         : 0.10.1
  Upstream Author : Mark Harrah, Steven Blundy, Josh Cough, Stuart Roebuck, Tony Sloane, Vesa Vilhonen, Jason Zaugg
* URL             : https://github.com/harrah/xsbt
* License         : BSD
  Programming Lang: Scala
  Description     : build tool for Scala and mixed Scala/Java projects

sbt knows how to compile Scala code, to run tests, to package jars and wars,
and to start the Scala interpreter with the right classpath.  Build definitions
are specified using a Scala domain specific language (DSL), in a mix of
declarative and imperative styles.

sbt manages dependencies, leveraging existing Maven or Ivy package repositories.

sbt can run in continuous compilation mode, and for testing and deployment,
helping programmers adhere to a test-driven development methodology.  Changes
to source files are monitored and dependencies are extracted from the compiler
so that only a minimum set of dependent sources will be recompiled, reducing
rebuild times.


-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
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=ENQt
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:51:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to thomas@koch.ro:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Mon, 12 Dec 2011 18:51:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #10 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro>
To: "simple-build-tool" <simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com>
Cc: Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com>
Subject: Building sbt with make for bootstraping
Date: Mon, 12 Dec 2011 19:49:12 +0100
Hi,

I've started today to learn about sbt and make in parallel and to write 
ivy.xml and Makefile to build sbt without sbt. 
If sbt should be packaged for Debian or any other free software distribution, 
then it must be possible to build it without itself.

I've not managed too much yet[1]. It builds util/datatype and util/complete.

[1] https://github.com/thkoch2001/xsbt/tree/build-with-make

I just wanted to let you know about this (insane?) effort. Maybe somebody 
wants to help? I don't know whether this is the best way or whether I'll have 
the time to finish it.

Best regards,

Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro




Changed Bug title to 'ITP: simple-build-tool for Scala and Java projects' from 'RFP: simple-build-tool -- build tool for Scala and mixed Scala/Java projects' Request was from Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Wed, 14 Dec 2011 16:09:08 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Owner recorded as thomas@koch.ro. Request was from Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:27:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:33:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to thomas@koch.ro:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Tue, 20 Dec 2011 18:33:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #19 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro>
To: 639910@bugs.debian.org
Cc: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com
Subject: some hurdles packaging sbt
Date: Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:30:07 +0100
Hi,

I've opened a pull request to get my current attempt of bootstrapping sbt into 
sbt upstream:
https://github.com/harrah/xsbt/pull/308

However this does not yet work completely. I can start sbt and enter the 
console, but

* it complains:
project/p.sbt:0: error: not found: object Keys
import sbt._, Process._, Keys._

* I can delete project/p.sbt. In that case sbt tries to download sbt from the 
default repositories and I couldn't find a way to point it to another (local) 
repository.

* I tried to set the debug logging level with no success.

I hope that the above are only some kind of simple configuration problems. 
Question is only, which configuration?

Regards,

Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro




Changed Bug title to 'simple-build-tool' from 'ITP: simple-build-tool for Scala and Java projects' Request was from Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:03:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Changed Bug title to 'ITP: simple-build-tool -- for scala and java projects' from 'simple-build-tool' Request was from Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Tue, 20 Dec 2011 19:48:07 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:27:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro. (Wed, 21 Dec 2011 16:27:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #28 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Johannes Rudolph <johannes.rudolph@gmail.com>
To: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com
Cc: 639910@bugs.debian.org, thomas@koch.ro
Subject: Re: some hurdles packaging sbt
Date: Wed, 21 Dec 2011 08:25:03 -0800 (PST)
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
On Tuesday, December 20, 2011 7:30:07 PM UTC+1, thkoch wrote:
>
> Hi,
>
> I've opened a pull request to get my current attempt of bootstrapping sbt 
> into 
> sbt upstream:
>

I think, it's a laudable effort to get sbt into debian. Once sbt is 
bootstrapped, is it possible to rely on an old version to build new ones? 
I.e. is it enough that an alternative build file is only added for the 
first released version and afterwards it could rely on an older self for 
further builds?

Can't you then put the alternative build file directly into the debian 
source patch for the first revision?

>
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:06:14 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to thomas@koch.ro:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 09:06:18 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #33 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro>
To: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com, 639910@bugs.debian.org, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>
Subject: SBT Debian packaging suspended
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 10:02:16 +0100
Hi,

since I've been asked: I'm currently writing my bachelor thesis and won't 
continue working on SBT Debian packaging until after easter holidays.

However in general I'd strongly suggest that packaging of SBT for a 
distribution is only continued, if upstream can be convinced to support a 
build path without a previous SBT binary, e.g.:

1. build a minimal SBT without SBT
2. build the full SBT with the minimal SBT from 1.

I spent a full week to compile SBT without SBT (and learning more about Scala 
and SBT). Any third party scripts to bootstrap SBT could break at any time and 
require a lot of work to fix, if upstream does not support this build 
strategy.

"Initial attempt to support build without sbt":
https://github.com/harrah/xsbt/pull/308

Best regards,

Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:03:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:03:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #38 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@gmail.com>
To: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com
Cc: 639910@bugs.debian.org, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [sbt] SBT Debian packaging suspended
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 14:59:55 -0200
On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 07:02, Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> since I've been asked: I'm currently writing my bachelor thesis and won't
> continue working on SBT Debian packaging until after easter holidays.
>
> However in general I'd strongly suggest that packaging of SBT for a
> distribution is only continued, if upstream can be convinced to support a
> build path without a previous SBT binary, e.g.:
>
> 1. build a minimal SBT without SBT
> 2. build the full SBT with the minimal SBT from 1.
>
> I spent a full week to compile SBT without SBT (and learning more about Scala
> and SBT). Any third party scripts to bootstrap SBT could break at any time and
> require a lot of work to fix, if upstream does not support this build
> strategy.
>
> "Initial attempt to support build without sbt":
> https://github.com/harrah/xsbt/pull/308

I'm not quite understanding the issue here. What is the policy in
question that is giving you trouble?


-- 
Daniel C. Sobral

I travel to the future all the time.




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:36:18 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 17:36:18 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #43 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com>
To: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com
Cc: 639910@bugs.debian.org, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [sbt] SBT Debian packaging suspended
Date: Sun, 5 Feb 2012 12:35:02 -0500
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
As I stated before, I feel requiring SBT to build without itself is like
trying to build Debian without GCC.   Scala takes huge pride in
bootstrapping and dogfooding.  We eat our own dogfood, use our own tools,
walk in our own destructive wake.  I feel the pain of SBT as much as anyone
else, because I have to use it every day when developing SBT related things.

I'm sad to hear no future work will be done on official debian packages.
 However, I strongly feel scalac + sbt are two tools that should be able to
dogfood using previous binaries.  Why should we support two builds if one
is good enough?  If debian developers wish to support a make build for SBT,
that's great.  I'd prefer to make use of SBT when developing SBT.  I'm
pretty hazy on why there's any reason on why SBT cannot use itself to build
itself for debian, redhat, macosx or any other platform.

If necessary, I will provide my own apt repository, signed and validated,
but built entirely with SBT to ensure we have a good story on debian.  If
the debian community wants us to have a make build and is willing to
create/maintain it for SBT to be in 'core' debian, that's wonderful.
Otherwise, I'll make sure there's a nice apt repository out there, built
with sbt, for sbt.

- Josh

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 07:02, Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > since I've been asked: I'm currently writing my bachelor thesis and won't
> > continue working on SBT Debian packaging until after easter holidays.
> >
> > However in general I'd strongly suggest that packaging of SBT for a
> > distribution is only continued, if upstream can be convinced to support a
> > build path without a previous SBT binary, e.g.:
> >
> > 1. build a minimal SBT without SBT
> > 2. build the full SBT with the minimal SBT from 1.
> >
> > I spent a full week to compile SBT without SBT (and learning more about
> Scala
> > and SBT). Any third party scripts to bootstrap SBT could break at any
> time and
> > require a lot of work to fix, if upstream does not support this build
> > strategy.
> >
> > "Initial attempt to support build without sbt":
> > https://github.com/harrah/xsbt/pull/308
>
> I'm not quite understanding the issue here. What is the policy in
> question that is giving you trouble?
>
>
> --
> Daniel C. Sobral
>
> I travel to the future all the time.
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "simple-build-tool" group.
> To post to this group, send email to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> simple-build-tool+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/simple-build-tool?hl=en.
>
>
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:33:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro. (Sun, 05 Feb 2012 19:33:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #48 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>
To: Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com>
Cc: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>, 639910@bugs.debian.org, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org
Subject: Re: [Pkg-scala-maint] [sbt] SBT Debian packaging suspended
Date: Sun, 05 Feb 2012 20:29:09 +0100
On 05/02/12 18:35, Josh Suereth wrote:
> As I stated before, I feel requiring SBT to build without itself is
> like trying to build Debian without GCC.

Comparing this situation to "trying to build _gcc_ without _gcc_" would
be a more fair comparison. (imho)

> I'm sad to hear no future work will be done on official debian
> packages.

Thomas has made some efforts to understand the situation. And, he isn't
saying that he will abandon the packaging effort. It is only "suspended"
due to personal reasons.

> However, I strongly feel scalac + sbt are two tools that should be
> able to dogfood using previous binaries.  Why should we support two
> builds if one is good enough?  If debian developers wish to support a
> make build for SBT, that's great.  I'd prefer to make use of SBT when
> developing SBT.  I'm pretty hazy on why there's any reason on why SBT
> cannot use itself to build itself for debian, redhat, macosx or any
> other platform.
>

It is quite understanble for a compiler to have a bootstrap phase where
an old binary is used to build the new one. Usually, upstream ship an
old binary to be able to achieve that. This technique completely and
widely used. As an example, Scala uses the same technique.

The situation with sbt is a bit different. It is quite uncommon for a
build tool to bootstrap itself. TTBOMK, sbt is the only popular build
tool that does bootstrapping.

In Debian, we do not ship pre-built binaries in packages included in the
"main" archive. Thomas is trying to fix this by making an experiment:
build sbt w/o sbt. The approach seems natural but seems not easy
(especially when you don't have upstream's support).

I think that one way to resolve this issue is to do like Scala, i.e.
ship pre-built binary is the source package to be able to bootstrap sbt.
What we would like to have is a way to build sbt without requiring
internet connection or external tools (be it sbt or another library). Is
it possible to provide that? sbt would be still bootstrappable, but we
would have a standard (i.e. an upstream supported way) to build sbt
using what sbt's source package contains. I think that's the only
external build dependency here. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

> If necessary, I will provide my own apt repository, signed and
> validated, but built entirely with SBT to ensure we have a good story
> on debian.  If the debian community wants us to have a make build and
> is willing to create/maintain it for SBT to be in 'core' debian,
> that's wonderful.   Otherwise, I'll make sure there's a nice apt
> repository out there, built with sbt, for sbt.
>

I'm not sure I understand your point here. Do you propose to provide
what Thomas is asking for (a way to build sbt w/o sbt)? I'm quite sure
Thomas will step up to maintain that system if this is merged into sbt
sources.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:21:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Josh Marcus <jmarcus@azavea.com>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro. (Mon, 06 Feb 2012 18:21:05 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #53 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Josh Marcus <jmarcus@azavea.com>
To: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com
Cc: 639910@bugs.debian.org, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [sbt] SBT Debian packaging suspended
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 13:17:59 -0500
Just to echo Josh Suereth's post, it's important for my work to have
an nice apt repository that we can use to install the most recent sbt.
 While it would be nice for the default debian package to be up to
date, a community maintained PPA is fine -- and I'd be happy to help
work on it.

To that point -- *is* there a current PPA with sbt that's usable?

--j

On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com> wrote:
> As I stated before, I feel requiring SBT to build without itself is like
> trying to build Debian without GCC.   Scala takes huge pride in
> bootstrapping and dogfooding.  We eat our own dogfood, use our own tools,
> walk in our own destructive wake.  I feel the pain of SBT as much as anyone
> else, because I have to use it every day when developing SBT related things.
>
> I'm sad to hear no future work will be done on official debian packages.
>  However, I strongly feel scalac + sbt are two tools that should be able to
> dogfood using previous binaries.  Why should we support two builds if one is
> good enough?  If debian developers wish to support a make build for SBT,
> that's great.  I'd prefer to make use of SBT when developing SBT.  I'm
> pretty hazy on why there's any reason on why SBT cannot use itself to build
> itself for debian, redhat, macosx or any other platform.
>
> If necessary, I will provide my own apt repository, signed and validated,
> but built entirely with SBT to ensure we have a good story on debian.  If
> the debian community wants us to have a make build and is willing to
> create/maintain it for SBT to be in 'core' debian, that's wonderful.
> Otherwise, I'll make sure there's a nice apt repository out there, built
> with sbt, for sbt.
>
> - Josh
>
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 07:02, Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> wrote:
>> > Hi,
>> >
>> > since I've been asked: I'm currently writing my bachelor thesis and
>> > won't
>> > continue working on SBT Debian packaging until after easter holidays.
>> >
>> > However in general I'd strongly suggest that packaging of SBT for a
>> > distribution is only continued, if upstream can be convinced to support
>> > a
>> > build path without a previous SBT binary, e.g.:
>> >
>> > 1. build a minimal SBT without SBT
>> > 2. build the full SBT with the minimal SBT from 1.
>> >
>> > I spent a full week to compile SBT without SBT (and learning more about
>> > Scala
>> > and SBT). Any third party scripts to bootstrap SBT could break at any
>> > time and
>> > require a lot of work to fix, if upstream does not support this build
>> > strategy.
>> >
>> > "Initial attempt to support build without sbt":
>> > https://github.com/harrah/xsbt/pull/308
>>
>> I'm not quite understanding the issue here. What is the policy in
>> question that is giving you trouble?
>>
>>
>> --
>> Daniel C. Sobral
>>
>> I travel to the future all the time.
>>
>> --
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
>> "simple-build-tool" group.
>> To post to this group, send email to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com.
>> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
>> simple-build-tool+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
>> For more options, visit this group at
>> http://groups.google.com/group/simple-build-tool?hl=en.
>>
>
> --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> "simple-build-tool" group.
> To post to this group, send email to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com.
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> simple-build-tool+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> For more options, visit this group at
> http://groups.google.com/group/simple-build-tool?hl=en.




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:27:10 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro. (Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:27:11 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #58 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: dave <leedm777@yahoo.com>
To: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com
Cc: 639910@bugs.debian.org, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>
Subject: Re: [sbt] SBT Debian packaging suspended
Date: Mon, 6 Feb 2012 11:22:59 -0800 (PST)
[Message part 1 (text/plain, inline)]
IMO, having an APT repository with something like the latest sbt-extras 
launch script <https://github.com/paulp/sbt-extras/blob/master/sbt> would 
be more useful.

Installing a particular version of SBT has always been problematic for me. 
Inevitably I end up needing to build some older package that requires an 
older version of SBT, and I've got to dig up the older sbt-launch.jar and 
its corresponding launch script.

SBT already does all sorts of downloading to get the Scala compiler and 
libraries, dependent libraries, and, oh yeah, the bulk of SBT itself. 
Having the launch script download the ~1Mbyte sbt-launch.jar that can 
launch the proper version of SBT for individual projects is invaluable.

dave
<><

On Monday, February 6, 2012 12:17:59 PM UTC-6, Josh Marcus wrote:
>
> Just to echo Josh Suereth's post, it's important for my work to have
> an nice apt repository that we can use to install the most recent sbt.
>  While it would be nice for the default debian package to be up to
> date, a community maintained PPA is fine -- and I'd be happy to help
> work on it.
>
> To that point -- *is* there a current PPA with sbt that's usable?
>
> --j
>
> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 12:35 PM, Josh Suereth <joshua.suereth@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> > As I stated before, I feel requiring SBT to build without itself is like
> > trying to build Debian without GCC.   Scala takes huge pride in
> > bootstrapping and dogfooding.  We eat our own dogfood, use our own tools,
> > walk in our own destructive wake.  I feel the pain of SBT as much as 
> anyone
> > else, because I have to use it every day when developing SBT related 
> things.
> >
> > I'm sad to hear no future work will be done on official debian packages.
> >  However, I strongly feel scalac + sbt are two tools that should be able 
> to
> > dogfood using previous binaries.  Why should we support two builds if 
> one is
> > good enough?  If debian developers wish to support a make build for SBT,
> > that's great.  I'd prefer to make use of SBT when developing SBT.  I'm
> > pretty hazy on why there's any reason on why SBT cannot use itself to 
> build
> > itself for debian, redhat, macosx or any other platform.
> >
> > If necessary, I will provide my own apt repository, signed and validated,
> > but built entirely with SBT to ensure we have a good story on debian.  If
> > the debian community wants us to have a make build and is willing to
> > create/maintain it for SBT to be in 'core' debian, that's wonderful.
> > Otherwise, I'll make sure there's a nice apt repository out there, built
> > with sbt, for sbt.
> >
> > - Josh
> >
> >
> > On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 11:59 AM, Daniel Sobral <dcsobral@gmail.com> 
> wrote:
> >>
> >> On Sun, Feb 5, 2012 at 07:02, Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> wrote:
> >> > Hi,
> >> >
> >> > since I've been asked: I'm currently writing my bachelor thesis and
> >> > won't
> >> > continue working on SBT Debian packaging until after easter holidays.
> >> >
> >> > However in general I'd strongly suggest that packaging of SBT for a
> >> > distribution is only continued, if upstream can be convinced to 
> support
> >> > a
> >> > build path without a previous SBT binary, e.g.:
> >> >
> >> > 1. build a minimal SBT without SBT
> >> > 2. build the full SBT with the minimal SBT from 1.
> >> >
> >> > I spent a full week to compile SBT without SBT (and learning more 
> about
> >> > Scala
> >> > and SBT). Any third party scripts to bootstrap SBT could break at any
> >> > time and
> >> > require a lot of work to fix, if upstream does not support this build
> >> > strategy.
> >> >
> >> > "Initial attempt to support build without sbt":
> >> > https://github.com/harrah/xsbt/pull/308
> >>
> >> I'm not quite understanding the issue here. What is the policy in
> >> question that is giving you trouble?
> >>
> >>
> >> --
> >> Daniel C. Sobral
> >>
> >> I travel to the future all the time.
> >>
> >> --
> >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google 
> Groups
> >> "simple-build-tool" group.
> >> To post to this group, send email to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com
> .
> >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> >> simple-build-tool+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> >> For more options, visit this group at
> >> http://groups.google.com/group/simple-build-tool?hl=en.
> >>
> >
> > --
> > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
> > "simple-build-tool" group.
> > To post to this group, send email to simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com.
> > To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> > simple-build-tool+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
> > For more options, visit this group at
> > http://groups.google.com/group/simple-build-tool?hl=en.
>
>
[Message part 2 (text/html, inline)]

Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:48:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@debian.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro. (Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:48:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #63 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@debian.org>
To: Josh Marcus <jmarcus@azavea.com>
Cc: simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>, 639910@bugs.debian.org, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org
Subject: Re: [Pkg-scala-maint] [sbt] SBT Debian packaging suspended
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:44:49 +0100
On 06/02/12 19:17, Josh Marcus wrote:
> Just to echo Josh Suereth's post, it's important for my work to have
> an nice apt repository that we can use to install the most recent
> sbt. While it would be nice for the default debian package to be up
> to date, a community maintained PPA is fine -- and I'd be happy to
> help work on it.
>
> To that point -- *is* there a current PPA with sbt that's usable?
>

Setting up a PPA (or some APT repository in general) that works out the
box, etc… is easy. Keeping it current, well maintained and working is
not obvious. Having one for each release and each APT distribution is
even more harder. Not impossible… but this work does not seem worth it,
IMHO. I'd be in favor of having it packages within the distribution to
get it working in all cases.

Before considering setting up an external APT repository in the wild,
I'd like to know if my original proposal¹ that hard to implement? I had
the feeling that it may be pretty easy to do, but no one replied… so I
wonder if I missed something…

¹: a self-contained tarball to bootstrap sbt, without needing network
access.

Regards,

-- 
Mehdi




Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org, thomas@koch.ro. (Mon, 06 Feb 2012 19:57:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #68 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Mehdi Dogguy <mehdi@dogguy.org>
To: Josh Marcus <jmarcus@azavea.com>
Cc: Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org>, 639910@bugs.debian.org, simple-build-tool@googlegroups.com, pkg-scala-maint@lists.alioth.debian.org
Subject: Re: [Pkg-scala-maint] [sbt] SBT Debian packaging suspended
Date: Mon, 06 Feb 2012 20:55:19 +0100
[ RE-sending with correct FROM: ]

On 06/02/12 20:44, Mehdi Dogguy wrote:
> On 06/02/12 19:17, Josh Marcus wrote:
>> Just to echo Josh Suereth's post, it's important for my work to have
>> an nice apt repository that we can use to install the most recent
>> sbt. While it would be nice for the default debian package to be up
>> to date, a community maintained PPA is fine -- and I'd be happy to
>> help work on it.
>>
>> To that point -- *is* there a current PPA with sbt that's usable?
>>
>
> Setting up a PPA (or some APT repository in general) that works out the
> box, etc… is easy. Keeping it current, well maintained and working is
> not obvious. Having one for each release and each APT distribution is
> even more harder. Not impossible… but this work does not seem worth it,
> IMHO. I'd be in favor of having it packages within the distribution to
> get it working in all cases.
>
> Before considering setting up an external APT repository in the wild,
> I'd like to know if my original proposal¹ that hard to implement? I had
> the feeling that it may be pretty easy to do, but no one replied… so I
> wonder if I missed something…
>
> ¹: a self-contained tarball to bootstrap sbt, without needing network
> access.
>
> Regards,
>





Information forwarded to debian-bugs-dist@lists.debian.org, wnpp@debian.org:
Bug#639910; Package wnpp. (Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Acknowledgement sent to thomas@koch.ro:
Extra info received and forwarded to list. Copy sent to wnpp@debian.org. (Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Message #73 received at 639910@bugs.debian.org (full text, mbox):

From: Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro>
To: 639910@bugs.debian.org
Subject: giving up to package sbt for debian
Date: Fri, 17 Aug 2012 12:40:25 +0200
Control: retitle -1 RFP: simple-build-tool -- for scala and java projects

I've sent the following explanation to the sbt list and copy it here:

back in february I said that I can't work on packaging sbt for Debian due to 
my bachelor thesis. This is over now and I took another look at sbt. I decided 
that I won't have time to package it and that it might not worth the effort 
anymore.

Packaging sbt for Debian has (still) two major issues:

a) Sbt needs itself to be built. But in Debian we try to minimize packages 
with circular build dependencies. I'm sure that it wouldn't be too hard to 
extract a minimal sbt that could be build with a simple makefile of shell 
script, but this effort would only make sense if upstream would officially 
support this.

b) Sbt must be buildable without accessing the net. I found it hard to really 
convince sbt to work offline.

I'd have liked to practice Scala by contributing to Sbt, but the total lack of 
developer documentation and code comments discouraged me.

Scala has some nice properties that would have made it a nice language for 
education. But for several reasons I will only install software on my school 
computers that is available from the debian archive.

On the other hand a combination of D and Python might even be better for 
school.

I don't know what the priorities of Sbt development are right now. My wishlist 
would be:

- Extract code from sbt into independent, smaller projects where it makes 
sense.
- Provide developer documentation in the form of inline comments, package 
descriptions and external documents if necessary.

Please CC me in replies since I'll unsubscribe this list in a few days.

Best regards,

Thomas Koch, http://www.koch.ro



Changed Bug title to 'RFP: simple-build-tool -- for scala and java projects' from 'ITP: simple-build-tool -- for scala and java projects' Request was from Thomas Koch <thomas@koch.ro> to 639910-submit@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 17 Aug 2012 10:45:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Removed annotation that Bug was owned by thomas@koch.ro. Request was from Bart Martens <bartm@debian.org> to control@bugs.debian.org. (Fri, 17 Aug 2012 18:48:03 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Added indication that bug 639910 blocks 660719,660720 Request was from Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> to 660719-submit@bugs.debian.org. (Wed, 24 Jul 2013 11:15:06 GMT) Full text and rfc822 format available.

Send a report that this bug log contains spam.


Debian bug tracking system administrator <owner@bugs.debian.org>. Last modified: Thu Apr 24 21:47:16 2014; Machine Name: buxtehude.debian.org

Debian Bug tracking system
Copyright (C) 1999 Darren O. Benham, 1997,2003 nCipher Corporation Ltd, 1994-97 Ian Jackson.