Skip to content

CDBS is going away, remove ancient bake_debian_files.sh#61

Open
a-detiste wants to merge 1 commit intognustep:masterfrom
a-detiste:master
Open

CDBS is going away, remove ancient bake_debian_files.sh#61
a-detiste wants to merge 1 commit intognustep:masterfrom
a-detiste:master

Conversation

@a-detiste
Copy link
Copy Markdown

These two CDBS modules are already gone:

include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/autotools.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk

These two CDBS modules are already gone:

include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/autotools.mk
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk
@a-detiste a-detiste requested a review from ivucica as a code owner February 2, 2026 11:53
@ivucica ivucica self-assigned this Mar 2, 2026
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Member

@ivucica ivucica left a comment

Choose a reason for hiding this comment

The reason will be displayed to describe this comment to others. Learn more.

@a-detiste Can we have an alternative instead of outright removal?

First, I've only done a quick ag across my old (misnamed) gnustep-ubuntu mercurial repo, and it looks like I have not used bake_debian_files.sh in there.

Then I've done it across this repo, tools-make, and this is a crucial file in Master/deb.make intended to be used in other libraries and apps (the intent is: if you use GNUstep Make, you can cook up a Debian source package with nearly no changes, and upload it to a build system (so, gnustep-base, gnustep-gui, and, say, SystemPreferences.app).

It's not to the level of what actual Debian packages are doing, but it was never meant to be: it was meant to be an easy option to quickly package software. I didn't quite maintain it or get a CI to build these packages, but I don't think nuking this is right.

Perhaps modernizing the rules file which is generated is the better option than outright nuking this? After all, rules is nothing but a Makefile, right? (Potentially doesn't even have to be that, as long as it is executable.)

So maybe dropping CDBS and replacing with more direct use of DH, or skipping that and just outright writing buildrules as I've done for some other non-public code is the right approach instead?

@a-detiste
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I see it is also using Python2 that was removed years before. It looks like nobody is using this script and nobody complained yet.

@a-detiste
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

I could not fix the 2 very last debian GNUmake packages myself so I asked the maintainer who did it for me.... that was 6 months ago, I don't remember which packages or even their name 😅. I remember the good feeling.

@a-detiste
Copy link
Copy Markdown
Author

Please have a look at this project:

https://wiki.debian.org/SummerOfCode2026/ApprovedProjects/DebianizeProduction

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment

Labels

None yet

Development

Successfully merging this pull request may close these issues.

2 participants