Re: [RFC] dpkg-buildpackage development goal
On Tue, 09 Oct 2007, Frank Lichtenheld wrote:
> Obviously one could attempt to merge in new features especially from
> debuild which reimplements dpkg-buildpackage but with many fancy
> additions. (While e.g. pbuilder and sbuild wrap dpkg-buildpackage but
> do not replace it)
>
> 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.
I think this needs to be evaluated on a feature-by-feature basis.
Some features should be handled in a standardized ways while some
corner-case features are better left to external wrappers. It depends on
how much creativity a given feature requires... when there's only one right
way to do it, it should be in dpkg-buildpackage, otherwise it can be
easily left out.
Like Julian, I think package signatures ought to be handled at this level
because only one implementation is really needed IMO.
Also now that you offered a command line option (-j) for
DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS="parallel=<n>", I think it would make sense to offer
similar options for other common options like "debug,nostrip" (#154468).
#4655 (checking versions in changelogs, if we do it) would also be a waste
if it was reimplemented in various wrappers. BTW, with the BTS using the
historical changelog information for its version tracking, it probably
makes sense to do it.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :
http://www.ouaza.com/livre/admin-debian/
Reply to: