Martín Ferrari wrote:
> Most surely I'm missing something, but what's cdbs ignoring? It lets
> you use dh-specific files and also pass arguments via variables...
> Aren't those the two ways of comunicating with dh_*?
With CDBS you're building a ship in a bottle. You have all the same
tools available, but there's this bottle in the way, which doesn't let
you bring any of them fully to bear, and requires all your techniques be
changed around to fit its limited interface.
This is a beautiful example of the kind of fun you're setting yourself up
for by chosing CDBS. With debhelper, two commands can be easily
reordered. With CDBS, you need three magic environment variables and
either a hardcoded package name or some grody Makefile code:
http://lists.debian.org/debian-python/2008/01/msg00039.html
> Since you entered the thread, I'd really appreciate your opinion on
> this debate (i.e. how to reduce all the repetitive work we do
> maintaining 600 packages which are almost identical, rules-wise) as
> you know the tools better than anybody else :)
Factor anything that isn't package-specific or a debhelper command out
of the rules file, and the maintenance cost of the rules files will get
so close to zero that it's not worth worrying about. This factoring of
the rules file down to triviallity is exactly how debhelper was
originally "designed"; I looked at a bunch of rules files and wrote
commands until they were just a string of dh_ commands.
The main candidate for factoring that I know of in the perl rules files
is the empty directory removal issue. It might be worth working around
that perl bug in dh_perl. There are probably other parts that could be
factored out to debhelper style commands, like the perl Makefile.pm and
make install.
BTW, here is a really weird thing in our current rules files that
doesn't make any sense with debhelper:
DESTDIR=..
dh_builddeb --destdir=$(DESTDIR)
Writing debs to .. is dh_builddeb's default behavior.
--
see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature