On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 12:54 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:38:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 11:07 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote: > > > 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*. > > Please call me over-picky but without checking the history is your > "most" not a sign that there is at least one change to d/rules which was > needed to fix some lintian issue. I can only see one change that dh would have handled for us. > I do not want you to change linux > d/rules file and I think it is pretty safe from beeing NMUed just to > switch to dh. Indeed. There is definitely scope for simplification, but it takes a lot of knowledge and time to do that. Given what others have said, I doubt that dh in its current state could handle the multiple configurations, which is a shame. > My point was that I doubt that any "working for years" > d/rules has no lintian issues. If "working for years" also implies unchanged for years, yes I agree. 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