On Nov 11, 2010, at 3:09 AM, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:

On Wed, Nov 10, 2010 at 10:18:44PM -0500, Hans-Christoph Steiner wrote:
On Wed, 2010-11-10 at 20:27 -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote:
Given that most pd libraries use the same template, I think we can
leverage the use of cdbs here:

1. We ship (eg, in puredata-dev) a standard-pd-object.mk CDBS class
which includes the snippets needed for the shlibdeps and license
fiddling, and the makefile class.
2. rules files then become simply:

#!/usr/bin/make -f


include /usr/share/cdbs/1/rules/standard-pd-object.mk

What do you think?

That looks very handy, but I think the given library template is well
tuned.  For me the problem would be then learning cdbs for special
cases. But since there are still at least 30 unpackaged Pd libraries, I
think having this as option makes sense. I'd call it something like

If the word "CDBS" discourages you, then (since the proposal is to ship a template _separately_ from CDBS) you can just ship a snippet unrelated to CDBS.

Heck, you can even ship a snippet which uses short-form dh!

My point here is that there is nothing in CDBS to "learn" except for the parts that you include. So if you find the CDBS templates more of a burden than a benefit, then don't use them - write your own from scratch instead: it is simply a make inclusion (at first - over time it may grow ugly, more ugly than CDBS).

(and yes, I personally favor CDBS over custom templates - no news there)

- Jonas

I have no problem against CDBS, indeed I have almost no experience with CDSB. Its just that I know debhelper and its working well for me, so I don't see a reason for me to switch. I won't dissuade anyone else from doing this tho, it sounds like a good idea.



"A cellphone to me is just an opportunity to be irritated wherever you are." - Linus Torvalds

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to