Re: About using CDBS: Open discussion
Since all this discussion started from a package I consider myself
responsible for, I feel the need that I should explain the situation,
at least concerning wormux.
This package was inherited in this form from Jean, and since it was
his "baby" and he continued to maintain it, I felt, I would be out of
place to change cdbs.
More importantly, I have always favoured powerful packaging tool to
more work or unnecessary verbosity.
Since cdbs never caused problems in wormux' maintainance (nor other
packages I encountered) , I never thought giving up cdbs would be an
Back at the more general issue, I think we should acknowledge that we
use cdbs in some cases where it represents a real help, but we favour
dh7 for new packages.
2008/11/4, Miriam Ruiz <email@example.com>:
> We've had a small conversation about using CDBS in legacy packages in
> the IRC channel that I thought would allow us to open a discussion
> about it. Any thoughts on this?
> [10:04:51] <Baby> wormux is packaged using cdbs?
> [10:05:19] <pabs> eddyp did the update:
> [10:05:22] <pabs> <eddyp> KiBi: goneri, Tolimar : please upload to
> (scp will probably finish by the time you read)
> [10:09:35] <Baby> I know, but then again, is there a reason for that?
> [10:10:08] <pabs> reason for using cdbs?
> [10:10:14] <Baby> yup
> [10:11:14] <Baby> I mean, if there is a reason to use cdbs and we're
> starting using it now, we might as well do it officially
> [10:11:31] <pabs> looks like the previous maintainer migrated to cdbs in
> [10:11:48] <Baby> http://wiki.debian.org/Games/ToolsDiscuss
> [10:12:08] <persia> For adopted packages, I think it makes sense to
> use whateer tools the previous maintainer used until someone has time
> to convert it.
> [10:12:21] <KiBi> anyway, cdbs is nowhere like the hell some pretends it is
> [10:12:39] <Baby> KiBi: I'm not saying it is, I don't have a clue about it
> [10:12:41] <persia> Well, it depends on what you're doing. Read the
> sendmail debian/rules for a counterexample
> [10:12:45] <KiBi> (as in: I see no reason to convert it from cdbs to
> debhelper if no cdbs bug is hit)
> [10:12:56] <Baby> but, as I said, if we start using cdbs we might
> better do it openly and officially :)
> [10:13:15] <KiBi> Well, IMHO there's no "if we start using cdbs".
> [10:13:22] <Baby> well, I don't agree with us saying we're doing
> things one way and doing it another
> [10:13:25] <KiBi> We have some packages using it, point.
> [10:13:36] <Baby> ok, then the wiki should reflect that
> [10:13:54] <pabs> actually I lie, looks like it was team-maintained before
> [10:13:58] <persia> Baby, Should the wiki reflect that, or should we
> have minor/wishlist bugs to convert them to debhelper?
> [10:14:33] <Baby> I don't really know persia, we might pefectly talk
> about it in the mailing list, but one of both
> [10:15:15] <KiBi> w00t
> [10:15:27] <KiBi> Switching from cdbs to dh would look *strange* to me.
> [10:15:40] <Baby> I mean, I'm not closed to cdbs even though I don't
> have a clue about it and it's not in my roadmap to learn it, but we
> should better be as open as possible about how we do things
> [10:15:46] <pabs> KiBi: what about cdbs -> dh 7 ?
> [10:15:47] <KiBi> (or are we talking about using fancy dh7 features?)
> [10:16:56] <Baby> is there any problem for anyone her if I cut this
> part of the conversation and send it to the mailing list to open a
> discussion about it?
> [10:17:28] <pabs> fine by me
> [10:17:46] <Baby> persia, KiBi?
> [10:17:51] <persia> I'm good.
> [10:18:57] <KiBi> Baby: as usual, what I say in channels is to be
> considered public.
> [10:19:07] <Baby> thanks :)
> [10:19:17] <Baby> it's safer to ask... and more polite :)
> To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
> with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact
"Imagination is more important than knowledge" A.Einstein