Am Donnerstag, den 10.03.2011, 18:32 +0100 schrieb Mehdi Dogguy: > On 08/03/2011 23:01, Benjamin Drung wrote: > > > > check-symbols > > I always hated programs that do "sudo" (and even more those doing it > *twice*). And, isn't just unpacking the .deb and checking for ".so" > there enough? You could have undefined symbols… but that may not be > an issue most of the time, IMO. (when diffing like in this case). Yes, this script need to be un-Ubuntu-fied. > > pbuilder-dist > > cowbuilder-dist > > mk-sbuild > > Those could be integrated in pbuilder/cowbuilder/sbuild as examples, IMHO. Good idea. That's even better than devscripts. > > pull-debian-source (?) > > apt-get source $src ? Not really, because for "apt-get source $src" you need an entry in your sources.list. With "pull-debian-source $src experimental" you get the experimental package, with "pull-debian-source $src lenny" you get the lenny package, and so on. > > reverse-build-depends > > This is "build-rdeps", already in devscripts, afaik. Then let's check if some functionality from reverse-build-depends should be merged into build-rdeps. > > suspicious-source what-patch > > I thought that the reason for this script to exist is to be used by other > scripts (like edit-patch, or add-patch) but it seems like it's not. I'm > not even sure that it helps beginners since it hides some very basic > information that every new maintainer should learn. Am I wrong here? suspicious-source is a tool to find pre-generated files (files not in the preferred form for editing). what-patch is a fast way to detect the patch system instead of looking in debian/source and checking debian/README.source and debian/control. Every new maintainer should know how to get this information without what-patch. With dpkg-source 3.0 (quilt) format the benefit of this script degrades. > Encouraging people to document how they patch their package could be > a better initiative, IMHO. > > > Most of the script are written in Python. Rewriting them to get them > > included in devscripts is too much work without benefit. devscripts > > would depend on python then. > > > > I suspect that the number of scripts to be moved is quite low. Moreover, > most of them are very simple and can be rewritten very easily. Is > rewriting them not an option? Rewriting them needs time and could cause new bugs. There are real benefits. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part