New maintainer's packaging - bewildering variety of information
Hmm...
I have been a debian developer for about two months now, but those two
months have been very busy in my personal life. My only contribution to
Debian so far has been a couple of sketchy web pages, and some debating on
-policy.
Determined to get a move on and start packaging, last night I re-read a
variety of bits of documentation, and ended up more confused than ever.
Various developers have packaged up a wide variety of tools which they
find make packaging easier for them. It is becoming rather hard for a new
developer to see where to start.
There's debstd, but I see that's deprecated.
There's debhelper, which is being currently updated, and I see quite a few
packages which use it.
And then there's the school of thought (Manoj's I think, but that may be
slander) that you should do it yourself.
And there's manoj's own cvs-buildpackage which appears to be orthogonal to
the above.
There's the devscripts package, which includes dch, build and release.
And (possibly) finally, there's dupload.
The new-maintainers how-to on the web site appears to be using the
devscripts set of scripts.
I realise that to some extent it's going to be a matter of opinion which
tools one uses, but would anyone like to illuminate a bit how one should
choose? I'm quite inclined to use cvs-buildpackage, and I already have
some knowledge of CVS, but it seems that cvs-buildpackage is expecting to
import and already packaged package..
Thanks for any light anyone can throw,
Jules
/----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------\
| Jelibean aka | jules@jellybean.co.uk | 6 Evelyn Rd |
| Jules aka | jules@debian.org | Richmond, Surrey |
| Julian Bean | jmlb2@hermes.cam.ac.uk | TW9 2TF *UK* |
+----------------+-------------------------------+---------------------+
| War doesn't demonstrate who's right... just who's left. |
| When privacy is outlawed... only the outlaws have privacy. |
\----------------------------------------------------------------------/
Reply to: