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

Re: CDBS and dh_install

> There are also pretty significant differences in the design goals of
> debhelper and cdbs, differences which I believe have a major impact on the
> ability of maintainers to understand their own packages and on the
> respective helper-induced build failure rates of the two.  I think these are
> very pertinent reasons not to recommend cdbs to novice maintainers.

I tend to agree.

I think it's important for new maintainers to understand how their
packages are built. For this, the very classical approach of
debian/rules with debhelper commands is a good compromise between
readability and accessibility.

On the other hand, the constant changes and new neat features
introduced in Debian (new debhelper commands, new ways to handle
stuff, etc) is a big challenge for maintainers to cope with (in short,
I bet that mostly noone except the debhelper maintainer is really
aware of all debhelper nice features....).

Using cdbs is indeed a very convenient way to be sure that packages
use a kind of common build method, which allows major build design
changes without big communication to developers. Of course, this
assumes that cdbs is kept up-to-date with recent evolutions of the
Debian packages build process and new neat features in debhelper.

I actually use cdbs for several of my packages, the most important
being shadow (others are font packages which are usually very
simple). In that specific case, I find it particularly convenient
because it allows the debian/rules to only list actions that are very
specific (actually, things that are done "by hand" for various
reasons, good or bad).

The funny goal of having one-liner debian/rules files, with cdbs, is
indeed a very good way to track down all hacks, dirty or not, we are
currently using in debian/rules files....which is, for the long term,
a good improvement.

But, be safe, Steve, I won't push for cdbs in samba (even though,
ahem, it's debian/rules file has room for improvement probably)..

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: