Path: csiph.com!news.mixmin.net!aioe.org!bofh.it!news.nic.it!robomod
From: =?UTF-8?B?5q635ZWf6IGw?= <seamlikok@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: linux.debian.maint.java
Subject: Re: About Jenkins in Debian
Date: Sun, 24 Jan 2016 17:00:03 +0100
Message-ID: <qUvf5-6TL-31@gated-at.bofh.it>
References: <qPMgy-434-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQylc-3yp-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQLBM-4uu-21@gated-at.bofh.it> <qQMeu-4Y2-7@gated-at.bofh.it> <qT47f-Ma-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Old-Return-Path: <seamlikok@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Approved: robomod@news.nic.it
Lines: 58
Organization: linux.* mail to news gateway
Sender: robomod@news.nic.it
Xref: csiph.com linux.debian.maint.java:8751

Hi,

So if my understanding is right, Jenkins is highly likely to be
removed from Debian. And the reason behind this is because the release
cycle of Jenkins is way too short and upstream already provides .deb?

So this makes me think about what exactly should be packaged into
Debian. There are not too many softwares providing .deb distributions
in upstream, but what if some of the softwares whose packages are
already in Debian starts to provide upstream .deb, will we still have
the motivation to keep maintaining it? For example, Gradle does not
have .deb in upstream, but SBT does, and Gradle indirectly depends on
SBT, then should we package SBT into Debian as well, which even though
means lots of work?

So what if there are some new packages that depends on libraries of
Jenkins and someone wants to package it, what should he do?

By the way, I am not using Jenkins in daily life, I am simply curious. :)

Regards,
Kai-Chung Yan

2016-01-21 0:41 GMT+08:00 Emmanuel Bourg <ebourg@apache.org>:
> Le 14/01/2016 10:15, Thorsten Glaser a =C3=A9crit :
>
>> Hrm, so is upstream=E2=80=99s packaging any good then? I have seen
>> so many attempts of upstream to package =E2=80=9Cfor=E2=80=9D Debian tha=
t
>> I don=E2=80=99t believe them unseen any more=E2=80=A6
>
> Reproducibility put aside the upstream package is quite good. The
> dependencies and the paths used are correct. It even managed to upgrade
> my years old installation of Hudson and turn it into a shiny and up to
> date instance of Jenkins without losing anything.
>
>
>> =E2=80=A6 (plus I=E2=80=99d not know which version to pick, and =E2=80=
=9Cnobody
>> ever got fired for buying IB^W^Wusing what=E2=80=99s in Debian=E2=80=9D =
=E2=98=BA)
>
> That's probably true for the upstream jenkins package too ;)
>
> Emmanuel Bourg
>



--=20
/*
* =E6=AE=B7=E5=95=9F=E8=81=B0 | Kai-Chung Yan
* =E4=B8=80=E7=94=9F=E5=8F=AA=E5=90=91=E7=9C=9F=E7=90=86=E8=88=87=E5=A6=BB=
=E5=AD=90=E4=BD=8E=E9=A0=AD
* Full-time student of National Taichung University of Education
* LinkedIn: <https://linkedin.com/in/seamlik>
* Blog: <seamlik.logdown.com>
*/