Re: Nitpicking: you are doing it wrong
Hi,
Nice topic, thanks to Jakub for having the good idea to have started it.
On 07/08/2011 08:47 PM, Scott Howard wrote:
> Right now, the general consensus is the dh and cdbs produce
> debian packages that are easier to maintain in the long run (if the
> sponsor has to take over maintenance of the package or if NMUs are
> required in the future.)
With all the due respect...
I really would like you to explain WHERE you saw such a consensus.
When it goes down to myself, I would *not* sponsor a package that
is using either dh or CDBS, because I like to be in the control and see
what's going on. I believe that CDBS/dh is hiding what's necessary to
do a good packaging, and is calling too many unnecessary helpers,
which slows down the build process. Also, with dh_override_*, if you
have a lot of them, it soon becomes unreadable. That's only my opinion
though, but I suspect that I might not be the only one to think this way.
In anyways, I don't see at all a consensus here!!!
>> - source format not 3.0 (quilt) when there are no patches whatsoever;
>>
> 3.0 (quilt) doesn't just handle patches, it has other features as well
> [4]. Even if you aren't interested in those features, and even if you
> don't have patches, that doesn't mean the person who will NMU your
> package two years from now won't want to add a patch, and NMU's should
> be changing source formats.
> "What should be done eventually must be done immediately."
>
Again, this is a preference. I don't like format 3.0 (quilt), and these
days,
I'm sticking to 1.0 because I like it, and I don't think anyone has the
rights to tell me otherwise.
A debate about these is a waste of time, please don't start it and let
everyone
choose what he likes.
> You're right that none of these are serious problems in a package that
> would prevent it from being useful or in the archive, but neither are
> the lintian --pedantic or -I warnings that sponsors ask to have fixed.
> The sponsors are picky for a reason (namely to have complete, robust,
> and somewhat standardized packaging to make QA, NMUs, and long term
> maintenance easier,) if you don't like their approaches you are free
> to work closely with another sponsor.
>
That, I agree, and everyone should. So please do not state your own
preferences
as being the reference implementation.
Thomas Goirand (zigo)
P.S: Appart from above, I'm a strong supporter of DEP5, because
otherwise, you
have no rules at all and it's a mess.
Reply to: