Re: Getting dh_install to do what we need
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 08.12.2011 10:44, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> Or for the more general case:
> This new feature stinks of black-box magic that will make people crazy
> trying to find/fix a prolem in somebody elses package. The thing that
> make cdbs so bad.
I beg to disagree. You made very good example why the former (your)
approach was a black-box indeed, whereas the newer one in fact
standardizes things in parts.
See, in your case libfoo.my-install-script could be doing anything,
including but not limited to copying, moving, creating, changing a file
without any information on what's going on.
Now, by using that feature you are forced to generate a (dynamic) file
listing instead and everyone can execute that script and see the results
without /actually/ installing anything to a binary package.
Of course you could discuss whether executing scripts is necessarily a
better idea than having some semantically parsed *.install file magic
instead, but that's an implementation detail.
Up to now, you are all discussing why "chmod +x foo.install" is so much
worse than overriding dh_install by your own dark magic but you should
be realizing you just traded one black-box for another
with kind regards,
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----