On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 11:38:41 +0100 Andreas Barth <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> * Neil Williams ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061211 11:26]: > > Yet some sponsors have made it clear that CDBS is not their preferred > > method and are somewhat unwilling to sponsor CDBS. > > > > I don't use automatic debian/control management and I personally > > wouldn't recommend using that part of CDBS. > > > > What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)? > > "I need to reverse-engineer code every time I use it" > > > There was a good blog entry recently about automation: Good helpers > make the tasks easier by reducing complexity. cdbs doesn't do that - it > surely makes the task easier for people used to it, but for all others, > it is a big black box adding complexity. Fully agreed. Factorising rules is alright, would be unreasonable to have to write every single command each time, but factorising to the extreme, like CDBS does, making the building system utterly complex is a bit absurd too. -- Ricardo Mones ~ Datei nicht gefunden Fehler 404 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
