Debian Med Policy (Was: ncbi-tools onder Debian Med group maintenance?)
On Mon, Sep 28, 2009 at 11:08:48PM -0400, Aaron M. Ucko wrote:
> The other point of divergence from the group policy is that I have
> been using Debhelper 7 whereas it still recommends version 5.
Ups, we should update policy definitely. Recommending debhelper 5 is
oldfashioned. I'm actively pushing any package I'm touching to
debhelper 7 (because I was noteven aware of this part of the policy
;-) ).
And in any case: It's a *recommendation* and if you have reasons to
diverge from this you can discuss this here. Perhaps there are other
points which are outdated and we just did not noticed.
> Is that likely to be an issue? (FWIW, lenny has 7.0.15.)
BTW, I try to push my packages to short debian/rules files using
%:
dh $@
which needs some features from debhelper >= 7.1. Even if this debhelper
version is not in Lenny I guess it is on backports and I guess this
change needs some time to penetrate most of our packages and so once
we migrated to this for the large amount of packages we will see at
least one further stable release. This does not mean I would like to
force packages from cdbs to debhelper. I will not change any packaging
just for the sake of changing. The goal should be short and easily
maintainable debian/rules files. I have the feeling that debhelper
will be more widely accepted in Debian in the future and thus I will
switch packages *if* there is a *reason*.
In other words: You are free to use either debhelper or cdbs but
I think we should change policy to reflect the fact that cdbs is not
our main preference but the goal are short debian/rules files (if it
makes sense).
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: