Re: New perl packages uploaded to the SVN
gregor herrmann wrote:
> On Fri, 07 Dec 2007 22:43:50 +0000, Julian Mehnle wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't think we should generally preclude CDBS from being used in
>> pkg-perl packages (even though I personally don't like CDBS). My one
>> issue with CDBS, though, is that it's documented miserably. :-(
>
> I agree, a policy "forbidding" CDBS is not what I want; but stating
> the current situation as a matter of fact -- that most members don't
> like CDBS (for its black magic and lack of documentation) and that
> the probability for sponsorship is lowder therefore -- seems ok to
> me.
Just for the record (as all people that talked here express concerns with
cdbs): I like CDBS and I use it for most of my packages (except packages I
created with dh-make-perl...)
I agree with the lack of documentation but I welcome the fact that the
packaging of lots of packages can be improved by modifying only one package
(CDBS) without the need to edit all packages. For example, automake-ed
packages automatically gain support for cross-compiling, management of
noopt, nostrip ... options, ...
I'm always a bit disapointed when I see all perl package with the same
debian/rules file. Or, more exactly, debian/rules of a perl package can
tell us the date of the packaging. They are so similar that a include of
a common file that can be improved over time seems a better technical
solution to me.
Bt the way, I does not have enought free time to document CDBS or to work
on the packaging of all perl packages, so let's continue with plain debhelpers
debian/rules.
Best regards,
Vincent
--
Vincent Danjean GPG key ID 0x9D025E87 vdanjean@debian.org
GPG key fingerprint: FC95 08A6 854D DB48 4B9A 8A94 0BF7 7867 9D02 5E87
Unofficial pacakges: http://www-id.imag.fr/~danjean/deb.html#package
APT repo: deb http://perso.debian.org/~vdanjean/debian unstable main
Reply to: