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

Opinions on CDBS amongst sponsors



I'm quite a fan of CDBS and I'm currently writing handlers for
debian/rules to create cross-building packages for Emdebian [1]. I've
found CDBS somewhat easier to automate - mainly because hand-crafted
debian/rules files can be quite disorganised and hard to
interpret/patch. The basic task is to omit certain dh_install* helpers
to prevent the packaging of ChangeLog, debian/changelog, README, TODO
and all the other non-program text that is normally part of a Debian
package so that Emdebian can fit on a 20Mb device (like an iPAQ) whilst
using Debian packages. Some debian/rules files don't use the debhelper
routines, requiring hand-editing of debian/rules to 'emdebianise' the
package by omitting certain direct calls to ${INSTALL} etc.

My own packages [2] [3] are all CDBS and I have found no reasons not to
use it. I prefer to sponsor CDBS for these reasons but I've no
particular problem with not using it.

Yet some sponsors have made it clear that CDBS is not their preferred
method and are somewhat unwilling to sponsor CDBS.

I don't use automatic debian/control management and I personally
wouldn't recommend using that part of CDBS.

What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?

Which kinds of packages have the most trouble with a CDBS method?
(There are CDBS classes for Perl, Gnome, Autotools and a few others)
[4].

[1] http://www.emdebian.org/
[2] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=linux@codehelp.co.uk
[3] http://qa.debian.org/developer.php?login=codehelp@debian.org
[4] http://perso.duckcorp.org/duck/cdbs-doc/cdbs-doc.xhtml

--


Neil Williams
=============
http://www.data-freedom.org/
http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/
http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/

Attachment: pgpFAt2zKN5Av.pgp
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: