On 5/13/19 6:28 PM, Sam Hartman wrote: >>>>>> "Thomas" == Thomas Goirand <z...@debian.org> writes: > > Thomas> Now, I have another example, which is quite the opposite one > Thomas> of what you gave as example: > > Thomas> > https://salsa.debian.org/openstack-team/debian/openstack-debian-images/blob/debian/stein/debian/rules > > Thomas> Why would one want to switch that one to something else? The > Thomas> package, basically, consists of a shell script and a man > Thomas> page only. The minimalism of this package doesn't require an > Thomas> over-engineered dh sequencer, does it? I'm happy the way the > Thomas> package is, and I don't think I'd switch to the dh sequencer > Thomas> *UNLESS* someone has a better argument than "it's new", or > Thomas> "debian/rules will be smaller", or even "it's going to > Thomas> evolve without you even noticing it" (which is more scary > Thomas> than anything else, which is IMO one of the defects of the > Thomas> dh sequencer). > > Could you make an attempt at articulating this as an exception?
I agree this package is probably an exception. On 5/13/19 7:42 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > - because it makes archive wide changes a lot easier. Right. Though I very much doubt this super-simple package will miss any archive-wide change applied through modifying the way dh sequences things. If this happens, it will mean we're over-engineering things. > - it's also simpler to understand. There, I don't agree. To fully understand how the dh sequencer works, one must first understand the 6 mandatory debian/rules targets, and how they are called. dh will hide everything. It isn't simpler, it *LOOKS* simpler, but it's a way more complex. When dh appeared, it took me months to accept it, because I didn't like it was hiding everything. I appreciate why it's done, and I do use dh in most of my packages, but it's still the case that I would prefer if it wasn't hiding everything. Cheers, Thomas Goirand (zigo)
