Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 08:50:01AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote:
> > I personally find dh_make-generated rules files hard to read in
> > general, mostly because the meaning of all those commands keeps
> > changing
> eh?
Um, if they didn't, why would we need compat levels? Also, it might be
that I'm really just misunderstanding things here, but dh_make-generated
debian/rules files seem to me to have changed a lot during the time I've
been using dh_make, and would that not imply the preferred way to use
dh_* scripts has changed, too? Of course, you might not have the same
idea of what the "meaning" of a command is.
On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 03:29:49PM +0200, Florent Rougon wrote:
> > Well, I must add that I don't find the recommendation very smart either,
> > but probably there's somebody out there that has terrible difficulties
> > in not reading commented-out lines or something like that. I personally
> The threshold where commented lines get unacceptable is IMHO way before
> they cause "terrible difficulties". You *could* read a newspaper article
> in which every other line is an ad written in red ink, but given the
> choice between that and a normal article, what would you choose?
I probably shouldn't have tried to sound funny. To be serious, this is
another of those cases IMO where both the benefits and the harm caused
by the comments are negligible. Still IMO, in this case the harm (a bit
of lost readability) is even more negligible than the benefit (ease of
taking into use if/when a script is needed), but someone might judge
differently.
Here's another straw man. Maybe we should also purge substvars that are
not used from the control file, and put them back if they become needed?
Remove Depends:, Build-Depends: and Build-Depends-Indep: if they are
empty after substitution, but put them back when they would no longer
be? I don't know.
Panu
--
personal contact: panu.kalliokoski@helsinki.fi, +35841 5323835
technical contact: atehwa@iki.fi, http://www.iki.fi/atehwa/
PGP fingerprint: 0EA5 9D33 6590 FFD4 921C 5A5F BE85 08F1 3169 70EC
Reply to: