On 17-May-2005, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > I don't think there's really consensus on it, but from personal > experience, I highly favour debhelper for reasons of least surprise: This seems a good reason, thanks. On 17-May-2005, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Ben Finney [Tue, 17 May 2005 11:35:56 +1000]: > > I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use > > hand-rolled debian/rules files. > > Which packages, and why? I'd rather not say, since I don't want to imply they're poorly packaged. It's more that I'd like to practice for my own packages by helping someone else first, and getting their direct feedback. > I mean, there are very cleanly packaged files that don't use > debhelper nor cdbs (see e.g. make). But there can be awfully written > debian/rules files, hence my question. The initial impetus was that I wanted to turn a package from a simple one-binary to a multiple-binary package, and found myself wanting to consolidate some of the resulting repetition between debian/rules targets. > Hah! Since that's a tricky question, I'll just say that to fix a > hand-rolled debian/rules, migrating to debhelper will probably be > easier and more obvious, just by substituting chunks of commands > with the appropriate dh_whatever invocation. That's exactly what I need help with. What should I do to decide "here's a bunch of hand-rolled stuff that has a direct or indirect debhelper replacement"? More to the point, how do I debhelper-ise an existing package and know that I've made good use of debhelper, rather than leaving lots of manual stuff that I didn't know to replace? -- \ Contentsofsignaturemaysettleduringshipping. | `\ | _o__) | Ben Finney <ben@benfinney.id.au>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature