On 29 Aug 2014, at 11:50, Axel Beckert <abe@debian.org> wrote: > For native or near-native (upstream = debian maintainer) packages > there also exists the idea of doing the opposite: Generating what is > needed for upstream setup tools based data in e.g. debian/control. In > the Perl world that would mean to generate dist.ini (preferably), > Makefile.PL or Build.PL based on data in debian/control. Just a minor note for the record: the way I imagine this being done is not to generate dist.ini but to reduce it to one line, ideally. That line would contain [@Debian] Makefile.PL or Build.PL are good candidates to be generated and that is exactly what Dist::Zilla does. dist.ini on the other hand is meant to be written by the maintainer and should contain the minimum information needed that is not available elsewhere (in the sense that it does not already belong somewhere else). Dist::Zilla plugins are used to gather the rest of the information and produce the boilerplate needed by CPAN. A fairly typical dist.ini would contain information about the name of the package, the author, copyright, and version. These are all duplicated in the debian/ directory. For a native package all that is needed are a few Dist::Zilla plugins and a plugin bundle (Dist::Zilla::PluginBundle::Debian, hence [@Debian] in dist.ini) and Dist::Zilla can extract the information from the debian/ directory. We do have dh-dist-zilla but the plugins and bundles still need to be written. I am planing to invest some time but if there are other people with more experience in writing Dist::Zilla plugins willing to help out I would be very pleased. That all being said it covers only a minority of packages. For the majority we want to have debdry proper :-) Regards — Elmar -- Elmar Heeb Bläsistrasse 49 CH-8049 Zürich Tel: +41 79 628 7524
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail