On Fri 09 Oct 1998, Santiago Vila wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 1998, Martin Schulze wrote: > > > Debmake was never 100% policy conforming. Due to this lack Joey wrote > > the debhelper that reflects our policy 1:1. Thus debhelper is to be > > preferred against the other tool. However I'm not sure how much > > orphaned debmake is since I saw a recent upload by Santiago a few > > days ago. > > Exactly. Thanks Joey for pointing this out :-)
Agreed, I'm glad to hear this. > Please, people, stop saying that debmake is "orphaned". It is not: > I'm the current maintainer, and so far I don't think I have maintained it > so badly so that it may be considered "orphaned". I think it does pretty well. I even saw that it resolved a problem with a symlink created by the (new) upstream source, which symlinked the manpage to an alternate name; the real manpage got gzipped, and debmake neatly renamed the symlink to comply with policy. I might have missed that (at least at first :-). I also prot many packages for the Alpha, and I find that the debhelper packages take much longer to build; the seemingly endless procession of dh_* scripts take forever to run. IMHO of course. Paul Slootman -- home: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | work: [EMAIL PROTECTED] | debian: [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands
