Re: Opinions on CDBS amongst sponsors
Neil Williams wrote:
> Yet some sponsors have made it clear that CDBS is not their preferred
> method and are somewhat unwilling to sponsor CDBS.
jftr: i do sponsor cdbs packages, but i can't give any tips to the
sponsoree in case there are problem whith it.
> What are the problems with CDBS (apart from debian/control automation)?
For me, it's all about calling the dh_* scripts: cdbs always calls all
every available dh_* it seems, whereas handcrafted rules do only call
the required ones. Beeing adicted to simplicity, this is not a
cleverness feauture to me, that's raw force.
Some time ago, when squashfs and unionfs were both building their
binary-modules packages on their own, unionfs took about 30 seconds to
build with handcrafted rules for all i386 flavours, whereas squashfs
took over 2.5 minutes with cdbs (and build: for squashfs takes less time
than the one of unionfs). The effect of calling all dh_* was cumulating,
though.
--
Address: Daniel Baumann, Burgunderstrasse 3, CH-4562 Biberist
Email: daniel.baumann@panthera-systems.net
Internet: http://people.panthera-systems.net/~daniel-baumann/
Reply to: