Re: Reworking on our organization - Look at the Ruby neighbours!
Gunnar Wolf <gwolf@gwolf.org> writes:
> 3. CDBS classes [3]. I'm still uncertain about this one, but all in
> all, it makes sense. Most of our makefiles are just the same over
> and over. When we have done changes to our build process
> (i.e. replacing the -$(MAKE) distlean with the conditional
> variant), it has been quite an invasive and error-prone
> approach. Too many ways of doing very similar things (yes, like the
> Perl motto - but still, I don't see much benefit with the current
> situation). Of course, you are all familiar with my error-fixing
> extra commits (BTW, just not to break tradition, it took me _six_
> commits to get my name added to pkg-ruby-extras.team ;-) ). I do
> not like CDBS too much, but it is greatly because I have not used
> it much, and it's harder to debug something you are not familiar
> with. Probably we should build a couple of CDBS classes for all of
> our packages, and do away with our individual makefiles.
I'm not horribly active (I mostly just watch out for a few modules and do
a few minor things when I have a spare moment), and I'm comfortable with
my opinion not mattering that much, but I intensely dislike CDBS. It's
almost undocumented, and whenever I want it to do something other than its
normal behavior, I have to dig through tons of complex makefiles to figure
out what magic variable to set.
Other than that, everything you list sounds good to me, although I'm not
sure that listing *all* of us in the Uploaders field of every package
makes that much sense. Seems like that list would get rather long.
--
Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>
Reply to: