[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

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.

Raphaël Hertzog

Premier livre français sur Debian GNU/Linux :

Reply to: