On Fri, Aug 13, 2010 at 08:37:36PM -0400, Andres Mejia wrote:

I would like to chime in and say that with the packages I've worked on (besides my own), I found that both dh and cdbs get whatever I need done. I however prefer dh.

I suspect that you (like Benjamin) mean modern short-form debhelper above - not classic debhelper (which is not really comparable to CDBS):

 * Classic debhelper solves certain atomic tasks
 * CDBS offer patterns to invoke external tools, e.g. classic debhelper
 * Modern shortform dh invokes classic debhelper (and more) as patterns

Really the only reason I've stuck with dh over cdbs in my packages is because cdbs depends on debhelper. cdbs even build depends on debhelper. I've asked myself, "what's the point of having 2 build dependencies when 1 is all that I need". Because of this, I found that I may as well use debhelper directly for packaging, as opposed to using debhelper indirectly via cdbs.

I suspect your reasoning to be flawed:

CDBS build-depends on some packages for its regression tests, among those debhelper and default-jdk. No, CDBS neither rely on debhelper nor on Java at runtime, despite these build-dependencies.

CDBS depends (at runtime) on debhelper because an exotic feature in the optional debhelper.mk snippet needs at least debhelper 5.0.30, but it is not possible to express a versioned recommends.

I'm not sure if I'm alone in this kind of reasoning. However, if you can somehow remove cdbs dependency on debhelper, I'm sure cdbs would be much more interesting.

Actually that dependency _is_ possible to remove. But what would we gain?

NB! CDBS never provided the functionality of classic debhelper.

Now if it's already possible to use cdbs without debhelper, than I'll go ahead and admit that I did not know. So far however, I haven't found how to use cdbs without debhelper in cdbs documentation or in cdbs examples. Also, cdbs dependency and build dependency on debhelper leads me to believe that it's not currently possible.

It *is* possible. But CDBS does not do what classic debhelper does, so unless you want to do that yourself, I fail to understand your reasoning here.

As I see it, CDBS and classic debhelper is *not* comparable, but works together (none of them depending on the other, really). CDBS and the *overlay* provided by newer releases of debhelper - the short-form dh tool" - an addition, not a replacement, to the classic dh_* tools - are comparable, and is what Benjamin asked clarification about earlier in this thread.

Hope that helps.

 - Jonas


As you no doubt have noticed by now, I really like CDBS. That does not mean, however, that I want to spam all lists with praising it: if you consider this topic irrelevant to discuss, then don't!

 * 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