Re: Build systems (was Re: An alarming trend (no it's not flaimbait.))
On 27 Dec 2001, Tollef Fog Heen wrote:
> * Adam Heath
>
> | dbs(doogie build system, debian build system)
> |
> | See autofs, apache, x(contains a pre-alpha version of dbs).
> |
> | Do NOT see glibc, gcc. Those use dpatch, which was around before dbs. Dbs
> | has a larger following(but well under 100 packages use it).
>
> What are the differences between DBS and dpatch, and why should I
> choose one or the other?
dpatch offers no patch ordering. dbs does
dpatch offers no command to generate a diff automatically. dbs does
Also, an unreleased dbs supports patch dependencies. It was a quick simple
modification to dbs to get it to support this. Dbs uses a single script to
apply all patches, which makes adding features easy. dpatch turns each patch
into a script, which means the scriptage needs to be updated by hand when a
new feature is needed.
Neither dbs nor dpatch are documented.
You should use dbs or dpatch if you end up having lots of patches against
upstream, and want to maintain them as short, small, separate patches, instead
of one single huge debian diff.gz.
Reply to: