Re: [RFC] dpkg-buildpackage development goal
Stefano Zacchiroli <zack@debian.org> writes:
> 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.
Personally I think it's a different problem.
A week ago I was talking to Arnaud (squashfs Debian maintainer, on Cc)
and we were talking about this problem and we think the best way to
avoid this problem is to have a common place for configuration so all
those wrappers avoid duplicated settings.
It would be better to offer a way to set and get settings in a common
way and then make all those tools to use it. This would make the
switch much easier.
--
O T A V I O S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
E-mail: otavio@debian.org UIN: 5906116
GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855
Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
you the whole house."
Reply to: