Il giorno Mon, 11 Feb 2008 22:33:22 +0900 Charles Plessy <charles-debian-nospam@plessy.org> ha scritto: > Hi all, Hi Charles, > the "compat" example in this thread is a good indication of the good > reasons to be cautious with CDBS. This said, many of the programs we > package are very simple, and I think that the advantage of CDBS, beyond > having debian/rules being compacted in a dozen of lines, Well, quality != quantity :p (ok ok, I'm joking) > is that the code is factorized and that future complexifications of the build > process, such as the introduction of novel build options like "nodoc", > will be applied without effort for us. Well, we should check our packages nevertheless, since an incompatible change might always happen. > I think that we all agree that the most complex packages should not use > a CDBS makefile with plenty of variables set to change the default > behavior. I do not find an easy quantitative way to formalise this in > our policy. Please feel free to propose one. At the very worse, > something like "If you use CDBS and the makefile is more than 12 lines, > please do seriously consider rewriting it using debhelper directly". I agree with that. But fixing a limit (i.e. 12 lines) is a restriction to me; why not using a more general wording? "If you use CDBS, but the makefile is getting too big, please consider rewriting [..]" Feel free to change the Policy :) Kindly, David -- . ''`. Debian maintainer | http://wiki.debian.org/DavidPaleino : :' : Linuxer #334216 --|-- http://www.hanskalabs.net/ `. `'` GPG: 1392B174 ----|---- http://snipr.com/qa_page `- 2BAB C625 4E66 E7B8 450A C3E1 E6AA 9017 1392 B174
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature