Neil Williams <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > So the main objections to CDBS are that it hides too much, making it > hard to know what is actually going on.
> How does this compare with other helper scripts like debuild and > pdebuild? Those aren't used as part of the package build process; they're wrappers around it that one doesn't have to use even if the maintainer does. I think you mean debhelper. debhelper, unlike CDBS, has actual documentation: every command has a man page, and every command does what the man page says it does. > Have there been *actual* incidences when a CDBS package has failed on > the buildd's for reasons that can be clearly attributed to CDBS itself? Yes. For example, a bug in CDBS (since fixed, I believe) broke dependency handling between libraries built from the same source package unless one ordered the binary packages in debian/control just right. > Do those who dislike CDBS also all use dpkg-buildpackage in full or is > debuild "better" somehow? You're really comparing apples to kumquats here; CDBS and debuild are completely unrelated. You can use either debuild or dpkg-buildpackage to build CDBS-using packages, for instance. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
