Adrian Bridgett <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > What about using debhelper rather than having another packaging suite? IIRC > Ian said that debmake was "broken" in some respects and that Debian should > have a decent packaging tool - IMO debhelper fits that nicely :-)
I don't believe that debhelper address one of Ian's main complaints at all. If I remeber correctly, that complaint was that when you use debmake (or debhelper), you end up with debian package source with non-deterministic behavior. Depending on the version of the packaging tool installed on the system you use to build the package, you may get a radically different resulting set of binaries. In addition (but less important), the current approach requires that you have the packaging tool package (debmake or debhelper) installed on the system where you're doing the build. Ian was proposing to fix these problems with a more automake/autoconfish apprach where the commands to build your package would reside within the package itself (rather than in /usr/bin via an external package), and there would be a higher level command (like autoconf) that when run would bring these embedded commands up to the current packaging tool standards. FWIW, I agree that Ian's objections are valid, and I think his approach should be preferred if someone gets the chance to implement it. (Sorry if I misrepresented your objection, Ian.) -- Rob Browning <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30 -- TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to [EMAIL PROTECTED] . Trouble? e-mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] .
