Re: cdbs vs dh vs ...
Hi Lucas,
On Thu, Mar 21, 2019 at 09:14:09AM +0100, Lucas Nussbaum wrote:
> On 21/03/19 at 08:38 +0100, Andreas Tille wrote:
> >
> > I do not want to turn this into a cdbs to dh flamewar.
May be I failed despite (or because??) I stated it explicitly?
I've set "Reply-To" to debian-devel and please if this should be really
discussed lets move it there.
I'm adding Jonas Smedegaard (as far as I know the only active developer
- Jonas please correct me if I'm wrong but Git commits are basically
from you) to comment on this topic. Jonas, I remember on one of the
DebConfs in the last three years (forgot which one) you told me about
your plan about cdbs. May be that's the right moment to comment here.
Kind regards
Andreas.
> > Before dh 7
> > Debian Med policy mentioned cdbs explicitly. We moved away to dh now.
> > I'm pretty sure the rsync maintainer would have refused a patch to
> > convert to cdbs as well. Several teams inside Debian have agreed to
> > team policies recommending modern tools to simplify the life of all team
> > members. I'd love to see something like this for the Debian Developer
> > team as a whole.
>
> I think that we lack data about such evolutions (see
> https://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/blog/?p=945 about solving that)
>
> According to lintian data, the current status is:
>
> udd=> select information, count(*) from lintian where tag='debian-build-system' group by information order by 2 desc;
> information | count
> --------------------------------------+-------
> dh | 24400
> cdbs-with-debhelper.mk | 2010
> debhelper | 1942
> dhmk | 227
> cdbs-with-debhelper.mk, debhelper | 155
> other | 116
> debhelper, dhmk | 9
> cdbs-without-debhelper.mk | 8
> cdbs-without-debhelper.mk, debhelper | 4
> (9 rows)
>
> (see also https://anarc.at/blog/2019-02-05-debian-build-systems/ )
>
> I uploaded a list with maintainers and packages at
> https://blop.info/pub/helpers.txt
> (generated with
>
> select information, maintainer, count(*), array_agg(source)
> from sources inner join lintian on sources.source = lintian.package
> where tag='debian-build-system'
> and information != 'dh'
> and release = 'sid'
> group by information, maintainer
> order by 3 desc;
> )
>
> Looking at the list, it seems that outside of some teams that
> standardize on tools that do not use dh directly (Haskell, Qt/KDE), and
> teams that have not yet migrated everything to a new tool (Perl, Java,
> OCaml), there's mainly a long tail of packages that are probably quite
> outdated.
>
> The difficult question (not really for the DPL candidates, but they can
> answer it ;) ) is: how do we decide that dh is the recommended practice,
> and that non-recommended practices get a lintian warning?
>
> Lucas
>
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: