On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 07:58:58AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
On 13/09/10 07:52, Fabian Greffrath wrote:

* I will no longer offer my help with issues that could be solved
using either short-form dh or CDBS - except when CDBS is already used.

But I still fail to understand this point. If for example a package using short-form dh7 in debian/rules needs a patch to the source or is missing a file reference in debian/foo.install, what keeps you from contributing?

The issue at hand was solvable by either:

1- Dropping the patch, using a CDBS feature
2- Dropping the patch, using dh-autoreconf
3- Modifying the patch.

From what I understand, jonas was offering 1. When short-form dh is used, _any_ modification to debian/rules needs understanding of short form dh. So he is saying that he will no longer offer help for cases like this one, which can be solved by features either in CDBS or in dh.

That is correctly understood.

As an aside, I personally believe that CDBS "infected" rules files are easier hackable by non-CDBS developers than short-form dh "infected" ones, but respect if others feel similarly alienated by CDBS as I do by short-form dh.

Kind regards,

 - 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