Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
Reinhard Tartler writes ("Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH"):
> I looked yesterday at the boxbackup source package and contemplated
> converting it to dh from debhelper. I decided to not, because I'm
> having a hard time seeing a significant simplification
> potential. Maybe I'm just not seeing it?
I think the dh-based rules file would be about 2/3 the length. I look
particularly at the binary-arch target and I think "why are we listing
all of this explicitly, and specifying an order". And what is that
DEB_HOST_GNU_TYPE for ? Seems like hand-coded cross-compilation
support. I bet dh would Just DTRT. etc.
> Note that I orphaned the package quite some time ago, so feel welcome to
> simplify it as much as possible on Salsa.
Heh. Well, like Sam, I am responding because I failed my saving throw
against XKCD-386 [1], not to try to badger you into doing work on a
package you don't much care about any more. I don't feel converting
this package, even as an example to others, is a thing that I want to
spend my time on...
Regards,
Ian.
[1] https://xkcd.com/386/
--
Ian Jackson <ijackson@chiark.greenend.org.uk> These opinions are my own.
If I emailed you from an address @fyvzl.net or @evade.org.uk, that is
a private address which bypasses my fierce spamfilter.
Reply to: