Re: Debian Science Policy: First draft online and open for discussion
On Wed, 28 May 2008, Manuel Prinz wrote:
I'll add a paragraph about that. We can also change it to Debhelper.
That's what is discussion is for: To find a consensus about that. At the
moment, it is just a suggestion.
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.
I'm missing something explicit about general comitt rights/etiquette.
Good point, I really did not think about that all the way through. I
personally would be OK if someone from the team would make non-intrusive
changes, meaning something that one would i.e. change in an NMU.
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.
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: