On Wed, 2006-12-13 at 10:29 +0200, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Especially adding the EXAMPLES sections would greatly improve all the
> manual pages by listing the typical usage cases. Here is an exerpt.
Patches are probably most welcome ;)
Thijs
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed me
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it
> > hard to know what is actually going on.
>
> > How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
> > pdebuild?
>
> Those
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006, Neil Williams wrote:
> What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?
Badly-documented black-box on something that we have to understand well to
sponsor or work with. This is Not Acceptable IMO.
> Which kinds of packages have the most trouble with a
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:58:27 -0800
Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
>
> > So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it
> > hard to know what is actually going on.
>
> > How does this compare with other helper scripts like d
On Mon, Dec 11, 2006 at 10:58:27AM -0800, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> > How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
> > pdebuild?
> Those aren't used as part of the package build process; they're wrappers
> around it that one doesn't have
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it
> hard to know what is actually going on.
> How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
> pdebuild?
Those aren't used as part of the package build process; they'r
Neil Williams wrote:
> Have there been *actual* incidences when a CDBS package has failed on
> the buildd's for reasons that can be clearly attributed to CDBS itself?
I have seen bugs that could have lead to FTBFS, due to the fact that people
mixed up their build-depends and build-depends-indep be
On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:25:58 +
Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it
hard to know what is actually going on.
How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
pdebuild?
Have there been *actual* incidences
On Monday 11 December 2006 12:05, schönfeld / in-medias-res.com wrote:
> This is not to hypothetical though. I was in interest several month ago
> to adopt a package which used CDBS and was poorly maintained. In fact i
> did resign to that, because it was to obscure for me and that time i
> wasn't
On Monday 11 December 2006 11:25, Neil Williams wrote:
> What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?
Generally I am not a fan of layers of abstraction once the abstraction is
too abstract. Frameworks are great as long as they do what you expect. But
if they fail to do
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/c
Hi,
Neil Williams wrote:
> What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?
my biggest problem about CDBS is the obscurity it adds to packages.
Example: You are a new-time debian developer. You want to adopt a
package that is already in Debian using cdbs. Now you have a
deb
On 2006-12-11, Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?
The biggest problem are the layers of obscurity added by cdbs and the
fact that the best docs are diving into the source.
(and the fact that there has been some cdbs r
Neil Williams wrote:
> Yet some sponsors have made it clear that CDBS is not their preferred
> method and are somewhat unwilling to sponsor CDBS.
jftr: i do sponsor cdbs packages, but i can't give any tips to the
sponsoree in case there are problem whith it.
> What are the problems with CDBS (apa
* 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.
>
> W
I'm quite a fan of CDBS and I'm currently writing handlers for
debian/rules to create cross-building packages for Emdebian [1]. I've
found CDBS somewhat easier to automate - mainly because hand-crafted
debian/rules files can be quite disorganised and hard to
interpret/patch. The basic task is to om
16 matches
Mail list logo
