Before commenting any further, I must be honest that I (still) never built KDE 
itself, but always "small" packages. Nontheless, I have been trying to 
understand CDBS before... and I was lucky enough to be on time for dh.

On Wednesday 09 March 2011 15:23:00 Modestas Vainius wrote:
> Hello,
> In my opinion, it is time to move away from pkg-kde-tools/qt-kde-team/1/*
> which is based on CDBS. As most of you know, I wholeheartedly dislike CDBS
> for a couple reasons. In short:
> 3) So finally, I would rather spend my time doing actual work (packaging)
> than reading cdbs internals or waiting until it wastes time while I'm
> doing test builds.

Fully and wholeheartdly agree on this.

> Now there is dh(1) sequencer. It's pretty nice because:
> 1) User interface is pretty straightforward. In particular
> override_dh_command targets are nice and `dh $@ --extra-option1
> --extra-option2` command line interface for options is fine too.


> dhmk design goals:
[big snip]

I really like them, although I must admit that I have little knowledge of 
makefiles (wich is easily fixable, as my job/NMUs/etc stuff has been showing 
me), although I don't have any perl experience... and I don't plan to have it 
in the near future.

> Therefore, I would like to see Qt/KDE packages getting converted to dhmk
> [2]. Unless somebody has to offer something better, they are welcome to.
> But personally, I no longer see "sticking to CDBS" as an option. While
> qt-kde- team/2/* is not perfect, I tried to decouple it from tight bound
> with perl while adhering to the best successful practises established by
> dh(1).

As for me, I really like the idea. But once again, I may not be the most 
suitable person to say this.

Kinds regards, Lisandro.

Contrary to popular belief, Unix is user friendly. It just happens to be
very selective about who it decides to make friends with.
  Unknown -

Lisandro Damián Nicanor Pérez Meyer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.


Reply via email to