Re: Opinions on CDBS amongst sponsors
On Monday 11 December 2006 12:05, schönfeld / in-medias-res.com wrote:
> This is not to hypothetical though. I was in interest several month ago
> to adopt a package which used CDBS and was poorly maintained. In fact i
> did resign to that, because it was to obscure for me and that time i
> wasn't too interested to figure out how to change it.
Well, to me it's just a matter of personal taste.. You could argue the other
way roumd: what I do like in cdbs is that you focus on your rules on the
specific difference that your package needs from a "common build system".
That is to say that you don't have to read and parse a complicated rules files
until you get why this or that trick happen...
The three criticisms I could say to cdbs is :
- Lack of documentation, even though duck's page is very usefull there, but
does not cover all cases
- Put a strong responsability on cdbs maintainers. If cdbs would to be broken
at some point, then the more package using cdbs there would be, the more
broken package we would get
- Some difficulties for teaching package practicies. "I'll let you do it the
full way and then teach you a way to circomvent everything in two line"...
Apart from that I am really happy using it.
Romain
Reply to: