Christian Perrier wrote:
Quoting Nicolas Spalinger (nicolas_spalinger@sil.org):And yes, I'm probably not going to stay with cdbs. (Pantelis' package was originally cdbs-based)....which is why I'm laughing.
Alright, looks like I rather misunderstood what you were laughing about there :(
(IIRC on Debian Planet I saw that some DDs did not like such an approach, so I thought that you were referring to that...)
cdbs makes the creation of simple packages (and font packages are simple ones, most of the time) much easier and straightforward. It also allows complying with most of the good practices without changes to each single package. So, as long as cdbs is well maintained, I see no reason to not use it in simple packages. But, well, that's your call if you prefer handling each debian/rules line manually....
Yes it makes sense, but my general feeling (I may well be wrong!) was that, at this stage, cdbs is abstracting away things too much and taking time to dive into all the other makefiles to know how to control things was too time-consuming... I thought that the current makefiles were really ideal for the specific "building-from-fontforge-sources approach" that is needed for packages like ttf-old-standard.
I guess we should contribute a font-building-specific makefile for cdbs sometime in the future... In the meantime the package builds from the .sfd sources with a simplified python fontforge script.
Cheers, -- Nicolas Spalinger http://scripts.sil.org http://pkg-fonts.alioth.debian.org https://launchpad.net/people/fonts