Re: CDBS and dh_install
#include <hallo.h>
* Manoj Srivastava [Fri, Jun 09 2006, 02:02:48PM]:
> On 9 Jun 2006, Christoph Berg said:
> > 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.
Oh, really? The last time I tried to add a custom command to the install
rule (well, >> 1 year ago) it was a real PITA. Docs have not told me how
it works, docs have not told me in an understandable language how to add
extensions, and after trying to find a proper way to insert a command by
myself, I gave up and threw it away.
So I have to agree with Martin here.
> > 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.
Choice of language is not an excuse. You can write a lot of ugly things
with Makefiles.
> > 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?
Because there is documentation telling what is going behind the scenes?
Like understandable manpages for every debhelper command.
Eduard.
Reply to: