Re: Opinions on CDBS amongst sponsors
Neil Williams <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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
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 (email@example.com) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/>