Re: Packaging helpers (Re: debstd-like tool for those who don't want to use debmake)
Vincent Renardias wrote:
> IMHO, 3 packaging helpers (debmake, joey's & yours) are 2 too many!
> I love to have the choice between several softwares when it comes to www
> browsers, mailers, etc... But for something as critical as our packaging
> system, each developper should not have to choose between N+1 helpers. It
> will only make things more complicated for developpers.
Well I see where you're coming from - when you take over maintainece of a
package that is packages with debmake, if you don't use debmake, that is not
a good thing. More tools just makes that situation more likely.
Still, I think all these tools are still in their infancy, and I think that
diversity is good just to try out different ideas and see how well they
work. We've have debstd for a year, and problems with its design slowly
became apparent..
> I personaly think the solution involving automake is the best one, and it
> should be distributed along with the policy manual, so it will be easier
> for us to have our packaging helper "in sync" with the policy.
> (install debian-policy 2.3.0.0 and the helper will generate 2.3.0.0
> compliant packages. Question of the day: Which version of debmake/joey's
> tool would you need to make 2.3.0.0 compliant packages? (probably only the
> tools' authors know)).
It's listed in the man pages for each debhelper tool which version of the
policy manual they comply with. (No, I haven't upploaded the version with
man pages yet, I want to get multiple package support working 1st.)
--
see shy jo
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: