On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 09:34:14PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > On the other hand one could argue that dpkg-buildpackage should
> > intentionally remain simple and that people are expected to write
> > their own wrappers or replacements if they need.
> >
> > What do you think?
>
> I personally think it ought to be kept simple since is very easy to
> write other more "feature-rich" wrappers around it.
>
> It needs to support all basic features of dpkg but no more then that.
In principle I agree with that.
However as a matter of fact nowadays is not that easy to switch from one
dpkg-buildpackage wrapper to the another, due to the variety of needed
configurations, different invocation APIs and such and such (here I'm
thinking at the ones I've used so far in my DD experience:
dpkg-buildpackage itself, debuild, pbuilder, cowbuilder,
{svn,bzr,git,...}-buildpackage.
*If* (I'm not sure it will) integrating some of their features directly
in dpkg-buildpackage can ease the switching from one to the other I
would say: go and implement them in dpkg-buildpackage.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli -*- PhD in Computer Science ............... now what?
zack@{cs.unibo.it,debian.org,bononia.it} -%- http://www.bononia.it/zack/
(15:56:48) Zack: e la demo dema ? /\ All one has to do is hit the
(15:57:15) Bac: no, la demo scema \/ right keys at the right time
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature