Am Freitag, den 13.08.2010, 10:40 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard: > 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!).
That's true. Using bleeding edge packaging tools make backporting harder. > CDBS provides routines to fetch and repackage upstream tarballs I don't use this feature, but it could be useful. > CDBS provides routines to track copyright and licensing info of sources. That's nice. Where do I can read more about it? > CDBS is less invasive - e.g. can be used with manually run dh_* commands You can use override_dh_* to run a dh_* command manually. > CDBS is written in make (short-form dh somewhat reinvents make in Perl) Yes, but Makefile rules can get complicated. Do you want an example? I like dh because it's simple. -- Benjamin Drung Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
Description: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers