Am Montag, den 26.04.2010, 16:16 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> On Mon, Apr 26, 2010 at 03:05:18PM +0200, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
> >Am 26.04.2010 14:43, schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> >>I seem to recall others happy to use CDBS as well.
> >
> >Yes, of course. CDBS is widely used and accepted.
> What I meant to say was that I seem to recall other _in_this_team_ happy 
> to use CDBS as well.  As Reinhard pointed out too.
> >It is just that we wanted to agree upon a packaging style that we as a 
> >team can recommend to new contributors.
> What I questioned was a wording by Benjamin Drung that could only (to 
> me) be interpreted as "in this team we are phasing out CDBS - new 
> packages must use dh7 while older ones need not be converted right now".  
> I still question that.

The interpretation is correct. We do not agree on that as the discussion
shows. That's fine.

We could either recommend dh7 or document the packaging patterns
described below by Jonas.

> I do not find that the wording is an attack on me or my personal style 
> of packaging, but rather that it is narrowing the options of packaging.
> Yes, I agree that new contributors are helped by a set of best packaging 
> practices. But I disagree that mandating specific tools are all helpful.
> I was a new contributor too just a month or two ago, and I was helped by 
> this team not being too restrictive.
> What I would find the most helpful was to document main patterns of our 
> actual packaging work: This would serve both as technical introductions 
> for beginners and as social hinting for more experienced developers (we 
> do want to attract both, right?).
> Examples:
>    * we do code review, so please commit in sensible chunks
>    * most of us use short-form dh7, some use CDBS
>    * we use git-buildpackage with separate DEP3-hinted patches
> With the above, I bet new contributors would choose short-form dh7 
> unless already decided on CDBS, simply because we clearly describe how 
> likely it is to get help using either style.  Similarly a newcomer would 
> probably think twice before insisting on using e.g. Darcs since that 
> would be alien to the team (no matter if some in the team use Darcs in 
> some other contexts).

That's the least enforcing method. This list comes to my mind:

      * we do code review, so please commit in sensible chunks
      * most of us use short-form dh7, some use CDBS
      * we use git as version control system
      * we use separate DEP3-hinted patches

How to describe the 3.0 source migration? Do we recommend DEP-5? Do we
wrap lists in debian/control (for example, Build-Depends)?

Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer ( | Debian Maintainer (

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to