On Mon, 11 Dec 2006 10:58:27 -0800 Russ Allbery <rra@debian.org> wrote: > 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. OK, I see that. In which case, my own wrappers are also unlike CDBS and much more like debhelper. The commands executed by the scripts can be performed manually and I'm being careful to ensure useful documentation. As you say, every command with a man page, every man page checked for accuracy before each release. (Take a look at apt-cross - v0.0.5 just uploaded to Debian.) > > 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. True, but debuild is much closer to what I'm actually doing for emdebian. It just so happens that the scripts also have to be able to cope with CDBS packages, hence the comparison. I'm primarily interested in sponsoring embedded packages (or packages small enough to be useful on embedded devices) and although I use CDBS for my own packages, I have no particular preference for packages that I may sponsor. Thanks for the feedback on CDBS one and all - very helpful. -- Neil Williams ============= http://www.data-freedom.org/ http://www.nosoftwarepatents.com/ http://www.linux.codehelp.co.uk/
Attachment:
pgpTrIp17R6mS.pgp
Description: PGP signature