Hi Charles, On Mon, 2011-07-04 at 17:12 +0900, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Jul 04, 2011 at 09:16:20AM +0200, Kilian Krause a écrit : > > > > CDBS is no longer preferred. > > Hi Kilian, > > I think that it is quite a bold statement. At least, there is not formal > archive-wide of deprecation of CDBS. Personally, I find that CDBS can be much > easier to use than dh for setting up correctly CFLAGS in some packages. To be > honest, with over-enthousiasm for dh, I mildly broke several of my packages, in > the sense that I did not realise immediately that they stopped setting -Wall -g > -O2 as compilation flags or honor the noopt build option (Policy §4.9.1). it may be due to the fact that I never quite got the right feeling for getting CDBS packaging be more easy than traditional style, yes. So whomever wants to quote me here can rephrase this to "I don't like CDBS - not back then, not now". ;-) So in this sense it's not preferred by me especially for reviewing packages to be sponsored. But thanks for putting this straight. -- Cheers, Kilian
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part