[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: extremetuxracer package

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

> 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.


Cyril Brulebois

Attachment: pgptB1h4sA0dZ.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: