Re: Getting dh_install to do what we need
Jon Dowland <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On Thu, Dec 08, 2011 at 08:14:52AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote:
>> I disagree. Look at dpatch. It had executable patches since the
>> beginning, and a standardised script from 2.0 onwards.
> One problem with executable patches was the fact you couldn't reason
> about the packaging without first executing them, in the general case,
> which was frowned upon by security-concious people who like automated
> package testing tools.
> Does that not apply here?
Not really, no. At least, executable debhelper files are not worse than
the already existing hacks and the proposed override mazes.
They actually have the potential to be much more understandable.
Compared to simple, static files, they're harder to understand and
reason about. But compared to overrides, n+1 variants of them, nope,
they're not worse in any way. However, this presents us with an
opportunity to standardise, and that's great.
Also, debhelper files are considerably easier to understand, even when
executable, than the few dpatch scripts that weren't patches are. ;)