Re: I take debmake
Adrian Bridgett <adrian.bridgett@poboxes.com> writes:
> What about using debhelper rather than having another packaging suite? IIRC
> Ian said that debmake was "broken" in some respects and that Debian should
> have a decent packaging tool - IMO debhelper fits that nicely :-)
I don't believe that debhelper address one of Ian's main complaints at
all. If I remeber correctly, that complaint was that when you use
debmake (or debhelper), you end up with debian package source with
non-deterministic behavior. Depending on the version of the packaging
tool installed on the system you use to build the package, you may get
a radically different resulting set of binaries.
In addition (but less important), the current approach requires that
you have the packaging tool package (debmake or debhelper) installed
on the system where you're doing the build.
Ian was proposing to fix these problems with a more
automake/autoconfish apprach where the commands to build your package
would reside within the package itself (rather than in /usr/bin via an
external package), and there would be a higher level command (like
autoconf) that when run would bring these embedded commands up to the
current packaging tool standards.
FWIW, I agree that Ian's objections are valid, and I think his
approach should be preferred if someone gets the chance to implement
it.
(Sorry if I misrepresented your objection, Ian.)
--
Rob Browning <rlb@cs.utexas.edu>
PGP fingerprint = E8 0E 0D 04 F5 21 A0 94 53 2B 97 F5 D6 4E 39 30
--
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: