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:
[1] 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

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to