On 11-05-26 at 04:46pm, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Fri, May 27, 2011 at 12:45:41AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote: > > On 11-05-26 at 02:20pm, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 04:52:38PM -0400, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > > > > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdr...@debian.org> > > > > wrote: > > > > > Recommends or Suggests: > > > > > cdbs > > > > > cmake > > > > > My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren't > > > > interested in switching from cdbs to quilt, so coming across > > > > packages still using it will be common for a while. CMake is a > > > > corollary to autoconf and heavily used in KDE-land, which seems > > > > like a not-insignificant number of packages. > > > > But in both cases, those should be pulled in as build-depends, no? > > > > To have them as dependencies of this package sounds to me like > > > you're recommending these tools for use. > > > now this is getting interesting: This really is a debate on whether > > Debian should encourage or discourage development using CDBS and Qt? > > Qt != cmake. You can use Qt without incurring the NIH limitations of > cmake.
Ok. Thanks for educating me :-) > This is also not really a discussion of whether Debian encourages or > discourages anything, only of whether the maintainers of this proposed > package will encourage or discourage something. Point taken! > their recommendation is to use cdbs, I don't think it makes sense for > such a package to depend on debhelper directly. This is wrong, actually: CDBS is usable also without debhelper. (Yes, CDBS currently depends on debhelper, but only due as a design quirk regarding interoperability between CDBS and debhelper - whether used manually or via the CDBS-procided debhelper pattern, so not to be relied upon). Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
