On Fri, 28 May 2010, Charles Plessy wrote: [ Skipping the part that makes no sense to me ]
> With a simple debian/rules target, for instance ‘source’, the conflict about > the source package formats can be made much milder, because it will be the > choice of the maintainer to use or not dpkg-dev, debian/source/format, and the > automatic patch production system. That's going further than for the binary package building, even if the process is controlled by debian/rules, it's always the dpkg-dev scripts that are underlying and dpkg-deb -b. Taking entirely dpkg-dev out of the story for building source packages is not a desirable outcome IMO. And in any case you need at least support of dpkg-buildpackage to call whatever new interface that you design for that purpose. > This solution would bring do-o-cracy back in the loop, with the dpkg-dev I don't think we have ever lost do-o-cracy... > (that they are in the first line to shape), and the package maintainers free > to > use another way if they dislike the approach taken by dpkg-dev. That's counter-productive. We have far more flexibility in dpkg-source than we ever had before, people could even invent new source formats outside of dpkg-source and gain traction before getting them merged officially. I'm also not a dictator imposing my view (although some people like to think that) I have changed my mind several times based on the feedback that I got. I'd rather have further changes on the topic backed by a DEP to avoid the miscommunication that we had concerning the new source formats. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog Like what I do? Sponsor me: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/05/5-years-of-freexian/ My Debian goals: http://ouaza.com/wp/2010/01/09/debian-related-goals-for-2010/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20100528064023.gb4...@rivendell
