packagng convention suggestion (was: why cdbs)

[Gonéri Le Bouder <goneri@rulezlan.org>]

Miriam Ruiz a écrit :

> --- Jon Dowland <lists@alcopop.org> escribió:
>
>  
>
> > I think a list of group-accepted packaging conventions
> > should be decided on and stuck in the wiki :-) Perhaps
> > Games/Development/Tools.
> >    
>
> Perfect. Time for opinions and suggestions is open :)
>  
I suggest to use cdbs when the build process is very standard (e.g: 
automake/autoconf) to keep rules file clean.

> > Whilst we're at it, for svn-buildpackage things, do we go
> > with mergeOnUpstream or not? It looks like a good idea to
> > me, but I see jmm dropped it for prboom (not sure why).
> >    
>
> I don't really know about that. Has it got any cons? if you think it's a good
> idea it'll be OK for me, but knowing a bit more about that would be nice.
For me svn-buildpackage is the way to follow. We can keep the prepare 
scripts  to repackage upstream tarballs. With games, data tarball use to 
be really big and so I don't want to import them in the svn.

Regards,

           Gonéri