Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria (Was: Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging)
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote:
> Russ Allbery <email@example.com> writes:
> > One can certainly argue both sides of this, but on this point in
> > particular, ftp-masters actually made a ruling and asked people to remove
> > the commented-out lines.
> > See <http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> down near the bottom
> > near debian/rules.
> This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not
> warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters. The dh_* calls are
> there for later upgrade of the package and retaining the order of the
> items is not the same as this pages' suggestion:
> "Edit them, test your package and then delete the whole bunch
> of commands that are commented out, make it hard to read and
> do not help. If you later need anything: Type dh_[TAB][TAB] to
> see whats available."
> Who can remember the correct order of dh_* calls later on?
> This recommendation looks like from 70's where optimizing C-code was
> the status quo and not the readablity, maintainebility.
> Having dh_* calls there help possible follower maintainer (if package
> is orpaned), who may not be as skilled as the originala maintainer.
> Please lift of the sentences from REJECT-FAQ.html if there are currently
> included in rejection criterias.
I'm surprised. I didn't know that packages may be rejected for
commented dh_ lines in debian/rules. I have always left the commented
dh_ lines, and I never had any rejections for this.
Maybe the solution is to integrate the reject-faq into debian-policy,
and have these rules checked by lintian (and linda)?
Anyway, I don't see a problem with the readability of debian/rules with
the commented dh_ lines, and I agree with Jari Aalto that leaving the
commented dh_ lines can be useful, so I would vote "allow" if a
discussion would be held for this.