Am Sonntag, den 05.01.2014, 15:09 +0100 schrieb Guillem Jover: > On Thu, 2014-01-02 at 17:22:33 +0000, Jonathan Dowland wrote: > > You raise some very valid points and §I appreciate your concerns and > > perhaps should rephrase my request so that I'm suggesting subsuming the > > most common used features of debsign and perhaps as part of a staged > > migration (compat symlink to debsign binary name in the phase 1, real > > name dpkg-sign or whatever), to try and avoid further complicating the > > debian package development universe. > > > On Thu, Jan 02, 2014 at 11:03:04AM +0100, Guillem Jover wrote: > > > IMO having debsign become a thiner wrapper around this new tool would > > > be the goal, as it would simplify its code, > > (Obviously, assuming devscripts maintainers would agree, I was just > inferring from previous interactions regarding debuild for example; in > any case what happens with debsign would be their decision entirely.)
I agree with this proposal. It can become a thin wrapper around the new tool (assuming someone does the work). Then it can either fade away (if the new tool can replace it completely) or stay forever (like debuild) if it provides additional features. -- Benjamin Drung Debian & Ubuntu Developer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1389221512.3369.6.camel@deep-thought
