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

Re: new scripts and patches for devscripts

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

Benjamin Drung
Debian & Ubuntu Developer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: