On Tue, Apr 15, 2008 at 09:15:24AM +0200, Raphael Hertzog wrote: > See #476100 for the reason. The lack of features in dpkg-bp resulted > in a fork of it... > > I think it's clear that it's best to extend dpkg-bp to support everything > that people need. The minimal set of features to add is the hook support > so that debuild can at least become a wrapper of dpkg-buildpackage again. > > But I would favor going further: > - also generate a .build file (with a mid-term interest to > upload it with each binary build) > - also cleanup the environment by default > - add a configuration file so that we don't have to always retype > "[email protected]" or "-us -uc -i -I" if we don't want to > (the default options should appear in the build log however)
Looking through the devscripts backlog, I came across the discussion in #476100 and this bug. Since we're at the start of a release cycle, what are the chances we can make some progress on moving functionality from debuild to dpkg-bp? I'd be glad to help if there's some guidance on what should be moved to dpkg-bp and/or what the next steps would be from dpkg's perspective. Cheers, -- James GPG Key: 4096R/331BA3DB 2011-12-05 James McCoy <[email protected]>
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
