Stefano Zacchiroli <lea...@debian.org> writes: >> Then we "only" need a package name, possibly finding other scripts apart >> from dh_apparmor (perhaps even poking the maintainers of various dh_* >> scripts if they'd consider merging into a single thing), and a >> maintainer (I'm willing to help with that, but the more the merrier, >> especially if there's someone more versed in dh-land than I am). > > A first approximation is given by: > > apt-file search -x '/usr/bin/dh_.*' | grep -v ^debhelper: > > of course there is a catch in centralizing dh_* scripts in a single > package, in terms of ease of maintenance by the respective teams --- as > an author of one of those tools myself (dh_ocaml), I believe it would > benefit more from staying separate than from being merged in something > like "debhelper-extras". > > But still it'd be useful to have such a package for dh_* scripts that > have no obvious location.
Hrm. That's a good point. Nevertheless, I still see value in a centralized location, even if that's done with partly depending on external tools (such as dh_ocaml), and also including others (dh_apparmor): a common sequence. So one could build-depend on debhelper-extras, that pulls in all the extra good stuff, and then do dh $@ --with extras. And that would register all the rest, one wouldn't need to use --with ocaml,extras. But perhaps this is an overkill. > If Joey has no objections, I believe you should just go ahead creating > "debhelper-extras" (or whatever name pleases you), including dh_apparmor > in it, and then ask on -devel who is looking for a home for orphan dh_* > scripts. A'ight. I'll go this route. -- |8] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
