On 11/02/2008, Miriam Ruiz wrote: > > That was informative - I've put my opinion onto that page, as well > > as below: […] Disclaimer: I've not read that page (and I'm offline at the moment). > Thanks for adding the comment Simon. Apart from the learning curve, > which I find to be a problem especially for newcomers, there's the > problem of CDBS not being as universal as debhelper. Are we talking about its use in % of source packages B-D'ing on it, or about something else? > Don't get me wrong, I have never used CDBS myself before, but as far > as I've been told, CDBS is great for certain kind of templated build > systems, but if there's something out of there, you need to keep > fighting with its insides and knowing CDBS code by heart. Well, it at least works very well for qmake-, or autotools-based packages. Adding a few lines to build a manpage or build an extra module isn't *that* hard. And you mostly have to concentrate on adding that little extra, instead of writing/copying/deleting tons of dh_* commands. And AFAICT, one can handle tweaking it quite easily. At least, I've been able to do what I want in most cases (and reported bugs for the other cases). And I'm really happy to have spared so much time during the dh_make step, as well as when reviewing debian/rules afterwards. > Although CDBS is probably a great tool for certain contexts, I guess > it would be too much to use as a general purpose tool for a team > that packages things with lots of different build systems, many of > them even "made by hand" by upstream. Let alone the fact that one can tweak cdbs as needed, I don't really see why we couldn't use cdbs in “simple cases” (read: e.g. autotools-based packages), and keep debhelper-only for harder cases. > Please, correct me if I'm wrong. The possibility of using also > diverse systems at once, like packaging some games with CDBS and > others with Debhelper doesn't really seem as attractive as using the > same tool for all of them as most as we can. Maybe using the more appropriate tool might be a nice idea. ;-) Anyway, I've no strong opinion on this, at all (maybe because I know a couple of tools and could handle any of them). My point was mainly to report that using cdbs, even with exotic cases isn't *that* hard. Really. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois
Attachment:
pgptB1h4sA0dZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature