On Oct 8, 2009, at 9:07 PM, gregor herrmann wrote:
On Mon, 28 Sep 2009 13:59:46 +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 01:18:29AM -0430, Jose Luis Rivas wrote:
I do strongly believe that's best using simple ways of packaging as
dh7 and that using CDBS is just adding extra complication in a
relatively easy. Please reconsider your petition.
I understand your concerns and respect them. I explicitly raised the
issue of CDBS sue when joining the Perl group, and back then it was
not considered a problem, but I will respect *if* the opinion of the
group has now changed.
Hm, interesting silence regarding this question :)
My opinion is that obviously hardly anybody wants to work on CDBS
based packages but that they do no harm in the group/repo. I'm fine
with having these packages here, and I don't mind ...
Nevertheless do not, however, drop the use of CDBS,
I think there is a slide in Joey Hess' talk from debconf this summer
showing the relative 'market share' of CDBS and debhelper. While
debhelper seems to have more developers using it, CDBS is still widely
used. And even if most of the perl modules in the debian-perl team use
debhelper, I think it is good to have someone who knows CDBS in case
we ever run into issues related to CDBS.