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

Re: sugar/olpc on .deb

Hash: SHA1

On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:59:30PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>[David Farning]
>> 2. There is concern about the complexity of the current packages 
>> packages for debian.
>[Jonas Smedegaard]
>> Just a slight clarification: There is nothing new in Holger arguing
>> against the use of CDBS.  And there is nothing new in my intend to
>> keep packaging simple.
>Is CDBS the simple or complex packaging in this context?

That depends on what you want simple:

CDBS is an additional packaging layer on top of core building tools 
(like autotools or CMake) and packaging tools (like debhelper).  So 
CDBS-based packages are more complex to initially setup, as you need to 
understand more mechanisms.

CDBS takes care of more things.  So CDBS-based packages is simpler to 

My primary aim is simplest possible package _maintainance_.

It is not simple to create a CDBS-based package truly from scratch. If 
instead you create a package by looking at some existing similar package 
already packaged using CDBS, then I believe it is relatively simple.

But I would dare say the same is the case for debhelper: Writing a 
package truly from scratch without either using some kickstart tool to 
generate debian/rules or by coying from other existing packages, it is 
certainly not simple to use debhelper directly.  Yes, debhelper v7 makes 
it simpler, but eg. keeping track of build-dependencies is not.

  - Jonas

- -- 
* Jonas Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  - Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)


Reply to: