Re: debmake + devscripts vs. debhelper
On Fri 09 Oct 1998, Santiago Vila wrote:
> On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote:
>
> > Debmake was never 100% policy conforming. Due to this lack Joey wrote
> > the debhelper that reflects our policy 1:1. Thus debhelper is to be
> > preferred against the other tool. However I'm not sure how much
> > orphaned debmake is since I saw a recent upload by Santiago a few
> > days ago.
>
> Exactly. Thanks Joey for pointing this out :-)
Agreed, I'm glad to hear this.
> Please, people, stop saying that debmake is "orphaned". It is not:
> I'm the current maintainer, and so far I don't think I have maintained it
> so badly so that it may be considered "orphaned".
I think it does pretty well. I even saw that it resolved a problem
with a symlink created by the (new) upstream source, which symlinked
the manpage to an alternate name; the real manpage got gzipped, and
debmake neatly renamed the symlink to comply with policy. I might
have missed that (at least at first :-).
I also prot many packages for the Alpha, and I find that the debhelper
packages take much longer to build; the seemingly endless procession
of dh_* scripts take forever to run. IMHO of course.
Paul Slootman
--
home: paul@wurtel.demon.nl | work: paul@murphy.nl | debian: paul@debian.org
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
Reply to: