On 11-05-26 at 05:28pm, Mackenzie Morgan wrote: > On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 5:14 PM, Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: > > Mackenzie Morgan <macoafi@gmail.com> writes: > >> On Thu, May 26, 2011 at 4:49 PM, Benjamin Drung <bdrung@debian.org> > >> wrote: > > > >>> Recommends or Suggests: > >>> cdbs > >>> cmake > > > >> My reasoning on these two was that some people probably aren't > >> interested in switching from cdbs to quilt, > > > > You mean from cdbs to using debhelper directly? cdbs and quilt are > > orthogonal to each other. > > Sorry, yes. > > The push toward Source Format 3 with Quilt and DH7 happened around the > same time that I started doing packaging with any frequency so I'm > somewhat muddled on the "old way." Do I recall correctly that there > was some sort of patch management included in cdbs or am I thinking of > another tool? Please - it is not the _version_ of debhelper but whether using short-form which was _introduced_ at version 7. I use CDBS for 240+ packages. Most of them use debhelper 6 to be easier to backport as far back as to Etch without any changes to source. Some use debhelper 7, and they can do so with these two commands: echo 7 > debian/compat DEB_MAINTAINER_MODE=1 fakeroot debian/rules clean ..but I do not use short-form dh for any of them - that clashes with CDBS while lacking some of the CDBS features. None of them (should) use the CDBS-provided single-patchsys - that tool is deprecated and never was good. I find a meta-package for development irrelevant: I recommend to simply install devscripts + whatever specific build-dependencies needed for the environment you want to work with. Kind regards, - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature