On 08/03/2011 23:01, Benjamin Drung wrote:
check-symbols
I always hated programs that do "sudo" (and even more those doing it *twice*). And, isn't just unpacking the .deb and checking for ".so" there enough? You could have undefined symbols… but that may not be an issue most of the time, IMO. (when diffing like in this case).
pbuilder-dist cowbuilder-dist mk-sbuild
Those could be integrated in pbuilder/cowbuilder/sbuild as examples, IMHO.
get-build-deps
Is this an alias for "apt-get build-dep $1"?
pull-debian-source (?)
apt-get source $src ?
reverse-build-depends
This is "build-rdeps", already in devscripts, afaik.
suspicious-source what-patch
I thought that the reason for this script to exist is to be used by other scripts (like edit-patch, or add-patch) but it seems like it's not. I'm not even sure that it helps beginners since it hides some very basic information that every new maintainer should learn. Am I wrong here? Encouraging people to document how they patch their package could be a better initiative, IMHO.
Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them included in devscripts is too much work without benefit. devscripts would depend on python then.
I suspect that the number of scripts to be moved is quite low. Moreover, most of them are very simple and can be rewritten very easily. Is rewriting them not an option? Regards, -- Mehdi Dogguy مهدي الدڤي http://dogguy.org/ -- 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/4d790b2c.2000...@dogguy.org
