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

Re: CDBS and dh_install

On 9 Jun 2006, Christoph Berg said:

> Re: martin f krafft 2006-06-09
> <[🔎] 20060609131903.GA9639@lapse.madduck.net>
>> also sprach Jean Parpaillon <artefact@altern.org> [2006.06.09.1118
>> +0200]:
>>> I want to migrate my package (wormux) to CDBS.
>> Why?
> I was just about to ask the same. Which packaging scheme do you use
> now?
>> This is my opinion and others will disagree:
>> Please don't. CDBS is a major pain to use for those who didn't
>> (co-)author it. It's just too much about obfuscation.
> This is also my impression. CDBS might be nice to automate the task
> "make a .deb out of this Gnome source", but imho it completely fails
> when you want to deviate from the "standard" in any way.

        I am surprised to hear you say so, since CDBS is one of the
 most configurable build systems out there. You can add commands to
 any phase of the build, by just adding targets/dependencies/variables. 

        Off hand, I would say that the cdbs approach is as flexible as
 any one might find.

> CDBS hides what it's going on while building the package. It is very 
> hard to see what it does, and if you are a newcomer, it is next to
> impossible to actually learn anything from using it. (And the syntax
> is very ugly.)

        Very subjective. I mean, heavens, cdbs is just a make file,
 and we all have some need to know how make works, as opposed to
 learning python/Perl/ruby or whatever other languages a helper
 package may be written in.

        I haven't really found the CDBS makefiles very hard to follow,
 but that again is subjective.

> Sorry for the rant, please read this as a "kids, please don't try
> this at home" message. I've seen way too many requests on -mentors
> or -mentors where people tried to use CDBS and failed just because
> it is evil black magic. (In one case a guy even said something like
> "I have bug foo in my package, I've even tried to repackage it using
> CDBS but it didn't help" - madness lies along this path.)

        I have expressed similar reservations about helper packages in
 general (including debhelper).

> Again, I'm fine if you use CDBS for your package, but please never
> recommend it to any new maintainer.

        Why would this not apply to any other helper packages as well?

"Infidels in all ages have battled for the rights of man, and have at
all times been the fearless advocates of liberty and justice."--
Robert Green Ingersoll
Manoj Srivastava   <srivasta@debian.org>  <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: