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

Re: RFS: peless -- dh_helper

On Thu, May 24, 2007 at 11:59:31PM +0300, Damyan Ivanov wrote:
> [added the list again]
> -=| Giorgio Pioda, Thu, 24 May 2007 21:11:19 +0200 |=-
> > > If I were you, I'd try to make "make install" not strip anything,
> > > patching if necessary[1]. The problem with dh_install approach is
> > > that you have to check carefully if there is something new to
> > > install every now and then, which leads to problems (as already
> > > seen).
> > > 
> > The world is nice because it is possible to find many different
> > opinions...
> I see your confusion and I understand it. It is not so good feeling to
> try to satisfy contradicting requirements.
> I, personally, will not sponsor a package that replaces a perfectly
> working "make install" with broken dh_install usage. Even if
> dh_install usage is fixed, I still don't like it. This, of course, does
> not mean that nobody else will want to sponsor it.


I am by no means an expert on debian, but as the upstream developer of
peless, I have to agree with Mr. Damyan Ivanov on this technical issue.

The history of Computers shows that whenever the same piece of data
is stored/maintained in more than one place, they inevitably get out
of sync, resulting in bugs and problems.

As the developer of peless, I must insure that "make" and "make install"
work properly. I do this indirectly by making sure that configure.ac
and Makefile.am are correct. "make" and "make install" control the
way peless is built and the way files are copied to their ultimate
destinations. "make" and "make install" definitely must be used for
distributions other than debian. Now I glean from the discussions
you have been having, that if dh_install is used, then essentially
the same information must be maintained somewhere else. History
shows that this can not be good.

For example, one of the next things I want to do with peless is
to make sure peless properly publishes its .pot file as the first
step toward making peless multi-lingual. When I do this, I will
adjust the auto* control files to make sure that "make" and "make install"
do the RIGHT THINGS(tm). But you seem to be telling me that if dh_install
is used, that files relevant to dh_install must also be adjusted.
This has to be bad. The same data being managed in 2 places, by 2 different

I am by no means a debian expert, but it seems to me from what I have
been able to glean from this discussion that dh_install is associated
with a fundamental software management design error. This could be
important with packages more critical than peless.

Paul Elliott                       1(512)837-1096
pelliott@io.com                    PMB 181, 11900 Metric Blvd Suite J
http://www.io.com/~pelliott/pme/   Austin TX 78758-3117

Attachment: pgpg5AFskFQUP.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: