On Sat, 09 Jul 2011, Thomas Goirand wrote: > My point to give arguments about not using dh was *not* to start a troll > thread about what is best practices. It was simply to tell that there > are some arguments for and against using dh, and as a consequence, I > found very bad to write in this list that not using dh was a bad idea.
Not using dh for a new package is a bad idea IMO. Sure enough, you can do the packaging once without dh to force you to learn the commands and what's going on. That's fine. But then when you're doing the packaging that you want to submit to Debian, it's best to use dh because the package will be more maintainable on the long run (for all the good reasons that have already been given). I don't share at all the 2 arguments that you listed against dh: - performance is not a real problem, the few seconds of build time are neglible even for small package, 5 seconds more in a build doesn't change much compared to the time you have invested in creating the package - readability, I find the override very good to point out what's special in the package (you would not notice in a normal debhelper package that a dh_foo call has been moved in the list) Of course, it's not a requirement at the debian level. But that's not a good reason to not recommend it to newcomers. They don't have the required experience to know what's best for them. Thus we should point them towards something largely accepted and recommended. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Follow my Debian News ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.com (English) ▶ http://RaphaelHertzog.fr (Français) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-mentors-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110709190517.gd30...@rivendell.home.ouaza.com
