On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 11:07 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:22:49PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote: > > > Why Not Make this Change > > > ======================== > > > > I would use dh for any new package and converting trivial packages is... > > trivial. However converting a package with a more convoluted rules files > > will take humanpower. While it may be justified to convert a mildly > > complex rules file on a package that has some activity, I don't think I > > would invest those resources to convert a package that's been working > > for years without anyone touching it's rules files. > > Can you give an example for a package that has a non-dh rules file > "working for years" that gives as a result a package with no lintian > warnings without changing this d/rules file? linux is one. I did a lot of work to address lintian warnings last year, and most of that did not involve debian/rules*. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part