[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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
 developers' time.

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: