On 08/10/16 20:57, Dirk Eddelbuettel wrote: > > On 8 October 2016 at 20:01, Joost van Baal-Ilić wrote: > | I couldn't agree more. I'm a cdbs fan, and some of my packages I maintain > with > | neither cdbs nor dh. So I was _very_ happy to find out cdbs was the tool > used > | by many r-cran packages, when I started packaging r-cran stuff. Don't get > me > | wrong: I am happy we now can use dh to build r-cran packages: more choice is > | always welcome. So: thanks a lot Gordon and Dylan for your work. I however > | won't immediately start converting my r-cran packages from cdbs to dh-r. > > Spot on, and agreed. Andreas et al did well with the updates to r-cran.mk, > and the cdbs approach is serving us well -- but needs an update. dh-r may fit > that bill. >
dh-r was accepted to unstable today. You are of course free to use it, or not, as you see fit. Gordon
