On Fri, Mar 04, 2016 at 02:38:28PM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > May I ask, then, that you remove this symlink thing from the "list of
> > things base-files does wrong because the package does not use debhelper"?
>
> That's up to you to do it, by adding a lintian overrides. Or maybe you
> don't want to add lintian overrides because they would end up on all
> systems?
Oh, a lintian override is not a problem really. I already have one,
so the os-release file is a clear candidate to be added.
> > If I switch to debhelper, would I have to fight it so that it does not
> > "fix" things like this?
>
> No, it just means that you can't use dh_link for this specific symlink.
Actually, I can do this:
dh_link -X os-release
and keep using dh_link for other symlinks I need.
So there is really nothing to "fight", dh is nicely designed indeed.
> > I know this was not the intent of your email, but you are actually
> > giving me reasons not to switch to debhelper rather than reasons to switch.
> >
> > Anyway, let me think about base-files and debhelper this weekend.
>
> Hopefully my mail convinced you that it makes your rules file more
> readable by putting in light what is different in base-files compared to a
> normal package...
Yes, that's one of the good properties of dh and their override_* targets.
By reading debian/rules you know immediately in which way the package
deviates from the standard.
I started to look at this. Stay tuned.
Thanks.
