Miriam Ruiz schrieb: > We've had a small conversation about using CDBS in legacy packages in > the IRC channel that I thought would allow us to open a discussion > about it. Any thoughts on this? > > Greetings, > Miry > Hi all Just to mix things that are only slightly related again, I think this approximately the same thing as the packages using dpatch instead of quilt (there are some of them) -- although dpatch -> quilt can be done quite easily in contrast to cdbs -> debhelper. To the subject: I personally agree with persia > [10:12:08] <persia> For adopted packages, I think it makes sense to > use whateer tools the previous maintainer used until someone has time > to convert it. If packages are working correctly with these tools which are (afaik) not considered obsolete in general there are a lot of things that -- in my eyes -- have priority over switching some tool. The best solution would IMO be to state in the wiki that these tools we -- or better you, I was not an team member back then -- decided upon shall be used for new packages and everything we inherited may either keep it's current system as long as it works or switch to our prefered tools. Regards Christoph -- /"\ ASCII Ribbon : GPG-Key ID: 0x0372275D \ / Campaign : X against HTML : / \ in eMails :
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature