On Sat, 25 Apr 2009 02:13:16 +0300, Peter Pentchev wrote:
> > back to UNRELEASED, TODO added to changelog
> Thanks for your reviews, comments, and changes - both here and in
> the other modules I've injected lately! As you can see, I've taken
> heed of your remarks for libtest-signature-perl - and thanks for
> uploading it! :) Thanks for helping me along the way as I'm learning
> the ropes of packaging Perl modules for Debian :)
Thanks for all your fixes and for the _very_ nice commit messages :)
> > + - missing build dependencies: libtest-pod-perl, libtest-pod-coverage-perl
> Fixed. Oops. Need to look into conditionally-executed tests, too.
> I *do* test all my modules with pdebuild, but this did not make
> the test fail, just be skipped (as I'm sure you already know :))
It often helps to watch the output as it scrolls by on the screen :)
(Especially the Pod tests often write something like "Test::Pod
needed", and I usually also try to find out why tests are skipped.)
> > + - please use our "default" debian/rules file
> Now this is the part I'm wondering about :)
> Could we get some consensus here? 'Cause just today, I've seen Damyan
> minimize the debian/rules files for at least two modules - rev. 33847
> in libapache2-authcassimple-perl and rev. 33861 in
> libwww-mechanize-formfiller-perl.
I know, I know :)
The "long" version was the default one (also produced by
dh-make-perl) at least until Damyan started to experiment with the
three-line version today in the afternoon. We've talked a bit about
about pros and cons on IRC (have I already said that I like commit
messages on IRC :)), and I agree that we should probably try to find
a consensus by discussing here in the -list.
> IMHO both the minimal notation and the override rules greatly help
> the rules file readability - we're left with just what is *really*
> needed there.
For me the longer version is more readable and easier to extend
(adding quilt fragements or some custom commands) because the
skeleton is already spelled out; but that may of course also be
because I've seen it a few hundred times in the last ~10 months.
> I'm just fine with using the "default" debian/rules file, with
> the important targets spelled out and the *-stamp files touched;
If we switch to the short version that's also fine for me, and my eyes
will get used to it :)
I'd just prefer to have one "default" version because it makes
reviewing and upgrading packages easier.
Cheers,
gregor
--
.''`. Home: http://info.comodo.priv.at/{,blog/} / GPG Key ID: 0x00F3CFE4
: :' : Debian GNU/Linux user, admin, & developer - http://www.debian.org/
`. `' Member of VIBE!AT, SPI Inc., fellow of FSFE | http://got.to/quote/
`- NP: Beatles: Dear Prudence
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature