On Wednesday 18 May 2005 08:06, Manoj Srivastava wrote:
> I find myself agreeing, except that I feel that way as soon as
> people get away from tried and tested POSIX commands and
> dpkg-dev. There are far more people who are competent with cp,
> install, mv, make, and other common POSIX commands, and may not be up
> to date with a distribution specific mini helper language.
hm, they may be competent with the POSIX commands, but knowledge of those
commands without knowledge of policy doesn't cut when building packages
-> so you're right back to distribution specific knowledge being needed
anyhow
Using debhelper scripts you can't forget or get wrong any of the litle
details policy mandates (it'll happen sooner or later),
you're also writing that code once for debian, instead of X times in X
packages, and many eyes make all bugs shallow right?
-> IOW debhelper tends to help enforce policy, and causes improved
code-reuse both good reasons to prefer it from a distribution standpoint
> I appreciate the build system for certain red hat and suse packages not
> being arcane and distribution specific when I try and incorporate
> changes made in packages on those distributions, and I tend to return
> the favour.
hm, If you do this often it's a net loss:
instead of studying one piece of code once to figure out what it does, you
now have to study n pieces of code all doing essentially the same thing for
n packages
--
Cheers, cobaco (aka Bart Cornelis)
1. Encrypted mail preferred (GPG KeyID: 0x86624ABB)
2. Plain-text mail recommended since I move html and double
format mails to a low priority folder (they're mainly spam)
Attachment:
pgpi9eoQwA5di.pgp
Description: PGP signature