Re: sugar/olpc on .deb
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On Mon, Jul 28, 2008 at 12:59:30PM +0200, Petter Reinholdtsen wrote:
>> 2. There is concern about the complexity of the current packages
>> packages for debian.
>> 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 Smedegaard - idealist og Internet-arkitekt
* Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/
- Enden er nær: http://www.shibumi.org/eoti.htm
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----