Hi, Nice topic, thanks to Jakub for having the good idea to have started it.
On 07/08/2011 08:47 PM, Scott Howard wrote: > Right now, the general consensus is the dh and cdbs produce > debian packages that are easier to maintain in the long run (if the > sponsor has to take over maintenance of the package or if NMUs are > required in the future.) With all the due respect... I really would like you to explain WHERE you saw such a consensus. When it goes down to myself, I would *not* sponsor a package that is using either dh or CDBS, because I like to be in the control and see what's going on. I believe that CDBS/dh is hiding what's necessary to do a good packaging, and is calling too many unnecessary helpers, which slows down the build process. Also, with dh_override_*, if you have a lot of them, it soon becomes unreadable. That's only my opinion though, but I suspect that I might not be the only one to think this way. In anyways, I don't see at all a consensus here!!! >> - source format not 3.0 (quilt) when there are no patches whatsoever; >> > 3.0 (quilt) doesn't just handle patches, it has other features as well > [4]. Even if you aren't interested in those features, and even if you > don't have patches, that doesn't mean the person who will NMU your > package two years from now won't want to add a patch, and NMU's should > be changing source formats. > "What should be done eventually must be done immediately." > Again, this is a preference. I don't like format 3.0 (quilt), and these days, I'm sticking to 1.0 because I like it, and I don't think anyone has the rights to tell me otherwise. A debate about these is a waste of time, please don't start it and let everyone choose what he likes. > You're right that none of these are serious problems in a package that > would prevent it from being useful or in the archive, but neither are > the lintian --pedantic or -I warnings that sponsors ask to have fixed. > The sponsors are picky for a reason (namely to have complete, robust, > and somewhat standardized packaging to make QA, NMUs, and long term > maintenance easier,) if you don't like their approaches you are free > to work closely with another sponsor. > That, I agree, and everyone should. So please do not state your own preferences as being the reference implementation. Thomas Goirand (zigo) P.S: Appart from above, I'm a strong supporter of DEP5, because otherwise, you have no rules at all and it's a mess. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
