Do you use the DBS? Document it!
Would you people using the DBS or some customized version of it please
do two things:
* Settle on a way to unpack and patch the sources
* Provide a debian/README.packaging where it says how to do the
above until you settle on a method?
Adam Heath has done a good job working arround some of our source
package's deficiencies, but different people use different incarnations
of his build system. This leads to a simple problem: there's no
obvious way to gain access to the sources used to build the package.
Some packages use 'debian/rules unpack', some use 'debian/rules
stampdir/unpack', some use 'debian/rules $PWD/stampdir/unpack', some
use 'make -f debian/sys-build.mk source.build', some use ... you get
the idea. Having to scan (sometimes convoluted) debian/rules files
looking for a way to unpack and patch the sources is a waste of time.
The sys-build.mk variant is nicely documented... in
debian/sys-build.mk. Others are nicely documented, too ... in
debian/random_file. I don't care what filename you settle on for
documenting this, as long as it's prefixed with README in caps. Get
people to use the settled on filenames and methods and turn it into
policy ("Packages using non-standard patch management system should
document the fact in debian/README.whatever" or whatever makes the
policy group happy)
If your package requires, for whatever reason, something more complex
than those features directly supported by our source package format,
fine. You want to use the DBS or a lookalike? Fine. But keep in mind
that the DBS is a hack and undocumented hacks tend to waste other
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to firstname.lastname@example.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact email@example.com