Am Mittwoch, den 28.05.2008, 23:28 +0200 schrieb Andreas Tille: > I think: Suggesting / recommending tu use CDBS where it makes sense if > fine - we can't force anybody to use a certain tool anyway. The "where > it makes sense" term means that CDBS is fine for simple packages but if it > comes to tricky things plain debhelper sounds less time consuming. We > had good experiences with CDBS in Debian Med - but we will not enforce its > use.
The current draft reads exactly that: one is free to choose but CDBS would be nice. I'll add a paragraph about the "where it makes sense" part to be more explicit. > It is very reasonable to raise this issue but my experience in practice > shows that there is practically no missuse. So mentioning the problem in the > policy seems to be correct - but I think it has low practical relevance. I agree with that. I have not heared of any case where that actually was a problem. So we have to options: 1) leave it out and hope for common sense or 2) include it and mentioning it to be "best practice". Which one would be the preffered option? Best regards Manuel
signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
