Re: Getting dh_install to do what we need
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Hi,
I am pretty sure I'll regret to comment on this thread soonish, but ...
On 08.12.2011 00:12, Gergely Nagy wrote:
> I'd like to offer another option: deal with it, and instead of doing any
> of the above (none of which would be a good idea in the long run, except
> maybe the first - but I quite like this feature as it is), embrace
> it, and extend it.
I am one of those who see the upsides of this change as well.
There are quite a few limitations in dh_install you can come over by
using such a script in a yet semi-expected behavior as you get a
well-defined output to anyone trying to understand a foreign package.
Your own script-fu in debian/rules or external scripts isn't exactly the
next best thing to read and learn how a foreign package works and there
/are/ use cases where dh_install isn't flexible enough to deal with the
problem by using the possibilities you had before. Renaming files and
multi-arch support is what comes me in mind immediately.
Gergely's idea to support standardized scripts to be executed also
sounds like a good idea.
That said, I'd appreciate if we could limit the usage to scripts in a
more sane dimension. For example for dh_install only (I fail to see how
it would be useful to other debhelper scripts - does any of you see a
legit use case for another debhelper script?), and, most important, if
we could limit this behavior to debhelper compatibility level 9 to not
break any existing source package out there which might accidentally
have +x on such a file.
- --
with kind regards,
Arno Töll
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/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=hmbG
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Reply to: