Hello, On Tue 30 Apr 2019 at 09:28AM -04, Sam Hartman wrote: > I plan to start with the question of preferring dh as a package build > tool. https://trends.debian.net/ has already added not using dh as a > "package smell" and so I'd like to validate whether the project agrees > with that. I'll start a discussion on debian-devel about this issue the > week of May 5. While you can of course start a discussion earlier or > even start a meta discussion about whether we should have a discussion > or whether I'm the right person to start it, I hope that doesn't happen. > I'm organizing some material to frame the discussion. I understand that > if we make a change it is likely to be a policy change. So perhaps I > could have started the discussion on debian-policy rather than > debian-devel. I think that for the high level question debian-devel is > more appropriate. If we get down to details then shifting to -policy is > likely to be a good choice. Policy currently documents an interface, and debhelper/dh is an implementation of large parts of that interface. Thus, it would be something of a layering violation if the normative part of Policy were to require or recommend using a particular tool to implement its other normative content. Perhaps, though, there's no way for Debian to implement such a change other than amending Policy. It's not clear where else we would write such a thing down. The problem, I guess, is that we have never standardised on an implementation of Policy before now (aside from the bits that are in dpkg itself). -- Sean Whitton
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature