Bug#250202: Get this over with
On Sep 21, Wouter Verhelst <email@example.com> wrote:
> > I object to an hard requirement, and I also object to the general idea.
> > It's not like there are hundred of different packaging scripts, so we
> > would end up with hundred of similar three-lines README.source files.
> Perhaps my judgement was clouded by the fact that dbs-alike scripts
> aren't synchronized yet; however, at the time I reported this bug, there
> were at least a number of (incompatible) dbs-alike scripts out there.
This is not important, maintainers just need to add an alias target to
*Way* easier to maintain and use for everybody involved than writing a
natural language description of the operations involved.
> The fact that there is now cdbs (which is gaining more adoption, and is
> slowly but surely replacing the older variants) does indeed help. In any
> case, if the packages that use such packaging schemes could come to an
> agreement without having to go through policy, that would indeed even be
All my packages use the "unpack" target because somebody once opened a
bug saying this was a de facto standard. (I did not bother to check.)
Marco | [8091 alsmF4qJ2LQbU]