[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria (Was: Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging)

Jari Aalto wrote:
> > See <http://ftp-master.debian.org/REJECT-FAQ.html> down near the bottom
> > near debian/rules.
> This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not
> warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters.

Except the FAQ doesn't say that it's a rejection criteria, just that
lots of useless comments in debian/rules are a sign of a package which
was potentially thrown together too quickly, and that if there are
enough such signs it may tip a marginal package over into the REJECT

FWIW, 70-90% of packages that I look at have either 

A) a commented out debhelper command or 
B) a comment saying "We have nothing to do by default." or
C) an uncommented debhelper command that does nothing in this particular
   package right now

Of these B is the most annoying indication that someone copied a
template without thinking, while A and C are very close to the same
thing, since debhelper is *optimised* for running lots of commands that
don't do anything, so that people can just dump a whole lot of commands
into a rules file[1] and enable them by writing the appropriate debian/
files. C is also a lot harder to detect than A, you have to closely
examine the package.

It seems silly to me that the ftpmasters would take especial umbrage to
A while not caring about B, and while probably not checking for C even
though it is nearly identical to A in effect.

see shy jo

[1] Can anyone say "cdbs"?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: