On 5/13/19 3:39 PM, Holger Levsen wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:33:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote: >> Today at least I don't think we're talking about making not using dh an >> RC bug. It would not make a lot of sense to me to start there. > > indeed. using dh should currently be a "should" in policy, with two > exceptions: > > - packages using cdbs. cdbs has features dh doesnt have and I dont think > it's wrong to use cdbs. (Although I don't recommend it...) If there is really something left where cdbs is better than dh, then this should be fixed in dh instead. > - build-depends of debhelper. gcc also needs a compiler to build - so I think it should be safe to allow debhelper to build its package using debhelper. Or am I missing something here? > Maybe we could also make the "should" stronger: > > - new packages (except if they are ment to become build-depends of > debhelper) *must* either use dh or cdbs. > - old packages should be switched to dh (or cdbs). > > And then turn this "should" into a "must" for bookworm (and thus make it > RC then as well). I strongly second this, although I'm not sure if cdbs should be involed or not, but yes, dh should be used these days and turning that into a "must" should happen sonner than later in my opinion. -- Bernd Zeimetz Debian GNU/Linux Developer http://bzed.de http://www.debian.org GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485 DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature