> > > As i mentioned in the other mail. Here is a working > > > verion http://www.steinmann.cx/debian/pool/main/d/dh-make-php/ > > > > Very nice. Why has it not been uploaded? Does it need special approval > > as a dh- script? > No, not that I know. I just didn't consider it mature enough for > a package to create other packages. Yes, you are right, I could have > published it better. There is also debhelper (dh_pecl) included > which should actually be part of the debhelper (bug #238834). It would > be nice if it became part of debhelper before dh-make-php becomes > official. On second thought, maybe we ought to first make some high level policy decisions about issues such as the recent current *.orig.tar.gz discussion, and make sure that they are all handled properly. Further, I agree with the TODO list at: http://www.madism.org/debian.pear.php that it would be good to have some helper scripts for individual tasks, even if they were also called by dh_make_pear (oh, and by the way, in order to be more consistent with other dh_* packages, perhaps you should call yours dh_make_pear instead of dh-make-pear). Here are some tasks that could be decomposed into helper scripts: - create debian/copyright from package.xml - create debian/control from package.xml - create debian/docs and debian/examples - extract upstream changelog from package.xml (into debian/changelog.upstream?) - create documentation using phpDocumenter That said, perhaps it would be just as good to simply have a standard dh_make_pear. As long as we came up with a standard policy, that might be sufficient. The potential advantages of having separate helper scripts, on the other hand, is that it would give more flexibility in using them outside of dh_make_pear. Charles -- Shaving brush In army pack Was straw that broke The rookie's back Use brushless Burma-Shave http://burma-shave.org/jingles/1942/shaving_brush
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature