Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 23:28 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > I think: Suggesting / recommending tu use CDBS where it makes sense if > fine - we can't force anybody to use a certain tool anyway. The "where > it makes sense" term means that CDBS is fine for simple packages but if it > comes to tricky things plain debhelper sounds less time consuming. We > had good experiences with CDBS in Debian Med - but we will not enforce its > use. The current draft reads exactly that: one is free to choose but CDBS would be nice. I'll add a paragraph about the "where it makes sense" part to be more explicit. > It is very reasonable to raise this issue but my experience in practice > shows that there is practically no missuse. So mentioning the problem in the > policy seems to be correct - but I think it has low practical relevance. I agree with that. I have not heared of any case where that actually was a problem. So we have to options: 1) leave it out and hope for common sense or 2) include it and mentioning it to be "best practice". Which one would be the preffered option? Best regards Manuel
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil