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

Re: extremetuxracer package

Simon Ruggier wrote:
>  "CDBS is not yet capable of handling very complicated situations (like
>  packages where multiple C/C++ builds with different options and/or
>  patches are required), but this only affects a very small number of
>  packages."
>  It seems to me that even in a case like this, one could still use
>  debhelper.mk, but write the rest of the build instructions themselves.
>   That way, the rules files wouldn't have the same debhelper calls
>  repeated verbatim throughout.

    As much as I'm a fan of CDBS, I'd prefer to not use it in
combination with other means of controlling package build.  CDBS is
very handy when packages don't need very much extra tweaking and
upstream and CDBS have the same conventions.  Once CDBS requires more
than a few special calls, it can become difficult to read for those
not familiar with the internals, quickly losing value as a method to
simplify debian/rules.

    I'd suggest that if CDBS is to be used, it only be used in cases
where there are only a few exceptions to the build flow expected by
CDBS, and that if there is significant variation, the package fall
back to listing the specific steps (including debhelper calls)


Reply to: