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

Re: Opinions on CDBS amongst sponsors

Neil Williams <linux@codehelp.co.uk> writes:

> So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it
> hard to know what is actually going on.

> How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and
> pdebuild?

Those aren't used as part of the package build process; they're wrappers
around it that one doesn't have to use even if the maintainer does.  I
think you mean debhelper.  debhelper, unlike CDBS, has actual
documentation: every command has a man page, and every command does what
the man page says it does.

> Have there been *actual* incidences when a CDBS package has failed on
> the buildd's for reasons that can be clearly attributed to CDBS itself?

Yes.  For example, a bug in CDBS (since fixed, I believe) broke dependency
handling between libraries built from the same source package unless one
ordered the binary packages in debian/control just right.

> Do those who dislike CDBS also all use dpkg-buildpackage in full or is
> debuild "better" somehow?

You're really comparing apples to kumquats here; CDBS and debuild are
completely unrelated.  You can use either debuild or dpkg-buildpackage to
build CDBS-using packages, for instance.

Russ Allbery (rra@debian.org)               <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>

Reply to: