On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 08:47:58PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote: > On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 02:40:12PM -0500, David Moreno Garza wrote: > > On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 20:59 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote: > > > A build system supposed to make Debian packaging easier (the `Common > > > Debian Build System'). > > > > The ease of use depends. IMHO, is more cryptic than using debhelper.
It is not cryptic at all, it does not replace debhelper, it is just an abstraction. I am still discovering but the CDBS makes me see what is common in all the package work I do. I don't see the point in writing a debian/rules file and calling all dh_* script in it. I do acknowledge that CDBS is possibly not useful for everything, but having packaged 8 Ruby libraries the past two weeks I've seen they are ALL the same: ruby setup.rb config, setup install with debhelper files to steer where files are being put. The small thing that varies is whether there is upstream generated documentation. Having a class that does all stimulates IMO both maintaintability and conforiming to policy. I would really like to know where you expect to lose control and what experiences you have with it. But, we had this discussion before, so I'll stop nagging now. :) Note though, that there is CDBS2 coming which should solve some of the current problems. > > But this is only a mere visceral opinion. ;-) > > I agree, which is why I avoid using it myself. I would really like to deploy this for my pkg-ruby-extras lib pkgs instead of having to expand the ruby-setup.mk call to 60 lines of dh_* calls. If we can't agree on it though, it's no problem to do so. Paul -- Student @ Eindhoven | email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] University of Technology, The Netherlands | JID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
