On Tue, May 17, 2005 at 11:35:56AM +1000, Ben Finney wrote: > I'd like to submit patches for a couple of packages that currently use > hand-rolled debian/rules files. Is the current best practise to use > debhelper, or cdbs, or something else?
I don't think there's really consensus on it, but from personal experience, I highly favour debhelper for reasons of least surprise: - What's going on is mostly clear, it's in fact 'basicly' a library of command snippets - No makefile fu, easily debuggeable because there's a clear place to put extra code at each step, and because of DH_VERBOSE. Flow of control is easy when not having expert makefile fu in debian/rules, and most people are no makefile experts - No need to migrate away from cdbs at any time you need to do something complicated not catered for in cdbs (in cdbs you require to have hooks available for what you want, rather than that being automatically available) - Does not encourage evil things like build-time rewriting of debian/control - Much more mature, cdbs is still in high flux, and iirc a rewrite (cdbs2) is planned or underway - And last but not least, debhelper is used in much more packages than cdbs, and greater familiarity exists amongst DD's and other maintainers This is my personal opinion, but real bugs are backed by this, like the most recent one I encountered: #309367 --Jeroen -- Jeroen van Wolffelaar [EMAIL PROTECTED] (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357) http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
