On Monday 11 December 2006 12:05, schönfeld / in-medias-res.com wrote: > This is not to hypothetical though. I was in interest several month ago > to adopt a package which used CDBS and was poorly maintained. In fact i > did resign to that, because it was to obscure for me and that time i > wasn't too interested to figure out how to change it.
Well, to me it's just a matter of personal taste.. You could argue the other way roumd: what I do like in cdbs is that you focus on your rules on the specific difference that your package needs from a "common build system". That is to say that you don't have to read and parse a complicated rules files until you get why this or that trick happen... The three criticisms I could say to cdbs is : - Lack of documentation, even though duck's page is very usefull there, but does not cover all cases - Put a strong responsability on cdbs maintainers. If cdbs would to be broken at some point, then the more package using cdbs there would be, the more broken package we would get - Some difficulties for teaching package practicies. "I'll let you do it the full way and then teach you a way to circomvent everything in two line"... Apart from that I am really happy using it. Romain
