Re: Getting dh_install to do what we need
On 12/09/2011 07:42 AM, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Bernd Zeimetz <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
>> On 12/07/2011 11:47 PM, Josselin Mouette wrote:
>>> Now that weâ€™ve made incredible progress in terms of obfuscation, Iâ€™d
>>> appreciate if we could have a working solution that does not require
>>> scripting for the most trivial operations. So what remains?
>>> * Convincing Joey to revert this useless change and actually
>>> commit something useful.
>>> * NMU debhelper.
>>> * Technical committee.
>>> * Fork dh_install in a new package.
>> It is up to you to use debhelper or not, so just use something else -
>> you have experience in writing
>> tools-which-do-the-same-thing-as-existing-tools. You could report a
>> bug report if you don't like it, but it is up to Joey to follow it or
>> not. You could do a NMU if you want people to complain about your
>> behaviour to DAM. You could even talk to the CTTE if you want to waste
>> more people's time. And yes, you could even fork (its open source!) a
>> dh_install package - or instead of wasting ftp master resources, just
>> ship your own dh_install script in your debian folders.
> I find it kind of funny that just recently Joey complained about Ubuntu
> adding a small patch to their debhelper (for DEB_HOST_MULTIARCH support
> in .install files) that he claimed would break some packages (although
> no examples have been given to substantiate that claim) and he therefore
> would ignore the patch and issue completly from then on. To teach Ubuntu
> a lesson.
You want to read that bug again.
> And now he does the same. Even worse because his change DOES break
So there are sources which have executable debhelper files already? I doubt it
as you'd have to chmod them manually.
Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer
GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F