Re: cdd-dev (Re: summary from the irc meeting 2007-09-10)
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007, Holger Levsen wrote:
On a first look I screamed "cdbs",
I guess this cdbs-ish appearance is caused by just using the
same idea to include a Makefile that works for a common set
of Debian packages (which are in this case CDD meta packages).
on a second look I see a normal rules file
using debhelper...
Yes. It is basically the former debian/rules file from debian-edu
that it is included. Just try a
diff /usr/share/cdd-dev/rules debian-edu-???/debian/rules
I'm not convinced yet, but I acknowledge I need to take a closer look. (Only
looked 2min. so far...)
I guess you will need about twice this time to get the idea. ;-)
So you would first need to upload cdd-dev to our etch and we would need to
approve it.
I don't mind if you add yourself as Uploader and upload to SkoleLinux
mirror (or even Debian mirror if you think something should be changed).
I'm in very big favour of group maintainance.
I guess I definitly prefer to keep a branch. Probably for etch, so that the
development in trunk can go on with more ease.
Fine with me.
But personally I think we should keep the build-system for etch the way it is,
and use cdd-dev (if at all, see above (*)) for lenny.
(*) "see above" because I'm not sure yet, how cdbs-like cdd-dev is.
The only thing in common is the "include <some makefile>" idea - there is
no cdbs dependency involved.
If it's like or similar to cdbs, I _strongly_ object.
I don't have those bad feelings about cdbs, but in this case it would be
pure overkill and thus it would make no sense at all. Trust me - I did
changed very view things compared to original Debian-Edu stuff to increase
the acceptance.
(And as said, I acknowledge
that I might be completly wrong here. Please prove me wrong.)
Hope I did so.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: