On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 09:48:41 (CEST), Fabian Greffrath wrote:

> Am 26.04.2010 09:39, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
>> I do understand that some find short-form dh7 easier to read than CDBS.
> It's just a matter of taste. Before dh7 was introduced I was also in
> favour of CDBS, but the new override_* rules really got me. ;)

Well, IME the time required to understand a piece of code (be it
upstream code or packaging scripts) does have direct influence on the
probability that new contributors start working on the code. I therefore
think that readability and understandability should be an important
criteria for writing packaging scripts.

>> But is that enough reason for making it mandatory for new packages?
>> So the (proposed) plan is to abandon CDBS, but tolerate it temporarily?
> I think we shouldn't make anything really mandatory. IMHO it does not
> really help anyone but scares away the members with strong preferences
> for on or the other build system, e.g. Jonas.

I'm also very happy that Jonas does a lot and great work inside
pkg-multimedia, I therefore fully respect his preference and style of
work. It seems that cdbs allows Jonas to be very productive, which is a
great benefit for the packages he is working on. I just hope that his
style of work doesn't mean that no one else but Jonas touches the
package anymore.

> Maybe we should just *recommend* a packaging style but still tolerate
> the others, as they are also perfectly valid to get things done.

I'd also love to see a *recommended* packaging style that every team
member can work with for new packages. If particular, more complex
packages benefit from not following the recommendation, then so be it.

Reinhard Tartler, KeyID 945348A4

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to