On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:43:51PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
Am Donnerstag, den 12.08.2010, 23:38 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: or agree to repackage using cdbs - I just won't you to get the impression that I lured you into this: most people in the multimedia team are fine with - yeah, even prefer - short-form dh, it is just me being obnoxious.I prefer dh over cdbs over long debhelper form. Are there any technical reasons for not using dh?
Good question. Thanks for asking! CDBS is more backports-friendly (beyond backports.org too!). CDBS provides routines to fetch and repackage upstream tarballs CDBS provides routines to track copyright and licensing info of sources. CDBS is less invasive - e.g. can be used with manually run dh_* commands CDBS is written in make (short-form dh somewhat reinvents make in Perl) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list email@example.com http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers