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

non-debhelper packaging (Re: AM Summary for Miah Gregory)

On Sun, Mar 09, 2003 at 04:51:19AM +0000, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> Personally I don't think that asking an NM to repackage something
> without debhelper is fair, I don't think they really will learn anything
> from it other than "debhelper is not the lowest level".

They will learn from it, and much, about the internals of a policy
compliant package, when they achieve to build such package without
debhelper. (and even more so when actually maintaining such package,
though that is not asked from them AFAIK)

> And packaging
> without debhelper DOES make it harder for the package to be adopted
> later.

Is it? Why? If anyone sees a problem in adopting a package which does not
use debhelper, question is if he is capable of good package maintaining in
the first place - with or without debhelper. That's the same idiom of
administrative people who say they can use a word processor when in fact
they are lost when you give them something different than MS Word.

Furthermore, it also should never be a problem because anyone who adopts
it should be able to convert it to debhelper anyway if he really desires
to do so.



<rcw> "Are you sure this spool directory is supposed to be 100GB?"
<rcw> "The printer spool directory never gets above a few MB, I think
       there's something wrong with the news spool directory."

Reply to: