On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:13:16 +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote: > > back to UNRELEASED, TODO added to changelog > Thanks for your reviews, comments, and changes - both here and in > the other modules I've injected lately! As you can see, I've taken > heed of your remarks for libtest-signature-perl - and thanks for > uploading it! :) Thanks for helping me along the way as I'm learning > the ropes of packaging Perl modules for Debian :) Thanks for all your fixes and for the _very_ nice commit messages :) > > + - missing build dependencies: libtest-pod-perl, libtest-pod-coverage-perl > Fixed. Oops. Need to look into conditionally-executed tests, too. > I *do* test all my modules with pdebuild, but this did not make > the test fail, just be skipped (as I'm sure you already know :)) It often helps to watch the output as it scrolls by on the screen :) (Especially the Pod tests often write something like "Test::Pod needed", and I usually also try to find out why tests are skipped.) > > + - please use our "default" debian/rules file > Now this is the part I'm wondering about :) > Could we get some consensus here? 'Cause just today, I've seen Damyan > minimize the debian/rules files for at least two modules - rev. 33847 > in libapache2-authcassimple-perl and rev. 33861 in > libwww-mechanize-formfiller-perl. I know, I know :) The "long" version was the default one (also produced by dh-make-perl) at least until Damyan started to experiment with the three-line version today in the afternoon. We've talked a bit about about pros and cons on IRC (have I already said that I like commit messages on IRC :)), and I agree that we should probably try to find a consensus by discussing here in the -list. > IMHO both the minimal notation and the override rules greatly help > the rules file readability - we're left with just what is *really* > needed there. For me the longer version is more readable and easier to extend (adding quilt fragements or some custom commands) because the skeleton is already spelled out; but that may of course also be because I've seen it a few hundred times in the last ~10 months. > I'm just fine with using the "default" debian/rules file, with > the important targets spelled out and the *-stamp files touched; If we switch to the short version that's also fine for me, and my eyes will get used to it :) I'd just prefer to have one "default" version because it makes reviewing and upgrading packages easier. Cheers, gregor -- .''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4 : :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/ `. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/ `- NP: Beatles: Dear Prudence
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature