Hi,
first off, I'm neither a DD nor an NM, but I do some packaging work
(thanks to alioth), As most people here argue against CDBS, I think the
benefits of it are missed (if you didn't guess, I use it and I like it).
Am Freitag, den 09.06.2006, 15:10 -0700 schrieb Steve Langasek:
> On Fri, Jun 09, 2006 at 02:02:48PM -0500, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> > > This is also my impression. CDBS might be nice to automate the task
> > > "make a .deb out of this Gnome source", but imho it completely fails
> > > when you want to deviate from the "standard" in any way.
I guess this paragraph sums it up pretty good. CDBS is not the best
choice if you need something *not* _c_ommon. OTOH, if I see a CDBS
based rules files with three lines, this tells me one thing pretty
clearly: there's nothing unusual in this package.
> Let's compare debhelper to cdbs.
I don't quite agree with your analysis. If you say "CDBS stuff is
under /usr/share/cdbs", you must as well say "dh_* stuff is
under /usr/share/perl5/Debian/Debhelper/".
The problem is the documentation, which leaves room for improvement. I
mean, how many people would understand dh_* without the manpages?
> /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/debhelper.mk anyway, so they're still *using*
> debhelper behind the scenes. :)
Yes, and that's a fact I like a lot. I mean, having debian/rules files
in different packages, which are almost exchangable, but still every
single one has > 50 lines, is unproductive.
(Packaging-wise) simple packages should have simple and *short*
debian/rules files.
I mean, if I want default values for a program, I do "./configure" and
not "./configure --enable-default-prefix --enable-default-docpath ..."
Regards
Thomas
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
