Dmitrijs Ledkovs wrote: > Well, it's 3 years later and dh has very good adoption. [1] > > Dh addons are very nice to use, but they require ./debian/rules > modification. > > My addon is "graceful", e.g. it does nothing if it cannot find its > configuration files under ./debian/. I'd very much enjoy if I can > specify "auto-enable" in my sequence.pm file. Maybe allow an option in > debhelper conffile whether "auto-enable" flags in addons should be > honoured and/or white list them? > > On the system-wide level, it would be nice to have a conffile and > specify addons that get auto-enabled. In at least ubuntu for a large set > of packages we do following: > * strip language translations into language packs > * generate ddebs into dbgsym packages > * optimise png and svg files > * symlink duplicate files > * scan logs for Implicit Pointer Conversions and fail the build. > > At the moment some of above is achieved by ugly diversions of e.g. > dpkg-builddeb and such like. Which are hard to maintain right, and are > sometimes slower than equivalent dh addons.
Do you have a patch? Worth noting that the sister bug filed on dpkg has been wontfixed (#570934). My main reason to consider this would be, I think, if it has the potential to stop debhelper getting bugs like #705545 filed asking for temporary changes that affect domains outside my expertise. -- see shy jo
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
