Re: alternative debian/rules
On 04/25/2013 01:52 AM, Neil McGovern wrote:
> Perhaps you should go read the bug report first. As you seem to be
> unwilling to actually do research, I'll include the relevant section for
> your benefit:
> -----
> 1: deliberate obfuscation for no benefit:
> echo .nr g 2 | cat - cpio.1 | \
> gzip -n9 >debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1.gz
>
> Just add the extra top line to the upstream or create a patch already.
> then you'd have something approaching sane:
> cp cpio.1 debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1
> gzip -n9 debian/pax/usr/share/man/man1/paxcpio.1
>
> Even that is two lines repeated three times (once for each manpage)
> instead of just dh_installman on a single line and a small .install
> file but that just demonstrates the insanity of the current rules.
> ----
>
> Neil
Yes, that's the same thing we are talking about.
Since you don't believe what I wrote, I'll state it again.
I think it's silly to call the echo + cat "deliberate obfuscation".
It is easy to understand, and I see no problem with it.
It is also not normal to say there's no benefits with such code,
when clearly there is (eg: no need to patch and patch again
every upstream version, as suggested...).
Then, there was no reason to rush into our poor Thorsten with
such aggressiveness.
When you write:
> That cannot be guaranteed - at some point, someone else is going to
> need to work on pax. The build system is non-standard and not well
> tested because it's restricted to only two packages.
>
> If that turns out to be me, I will RM. I'm not going to spend time on
> the current insanity.
then I don't agree, and I don't support such decision.
Don't take me wrong. I do agree that using debhelper is better
and that it could have been recommended to Thorsten. I do agree
with the general idea to push him to use something more easy to
understand and maintain by others. But *not this way*, with threats
to RM his package, and calling some very easy to understand code
(eg that echo + cat) as "deliberate obfuscation", as if he had such
bad intentions.
By the way, I'm quite sure I'd find a non-debhelper style of debian/rules
more easy to understand than CDBS ! :)
Thomas
Reply to: