On Sun, Apr 24, 2011 at 06:26:37PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> On 11-04-24 at 12:16pm, Felipe Sateler wrote:
> > 
> > This is the key part: for most pd externals, the makefile is 
> > essentially the same. Does it make sense to centralize that? What do 
> > others think?
> Do you mean using CDBS for more of the pd packages, or reinventing CDBS 
> on top of short-form dh, or something else?

afaiu, it's more about replacing the upstream build-system than about the
actually used "debian build system".
include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk

        dh $@ --buildsystem=makefile

        dh_auto_build -- -f /usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile

or similar (i prefer using cdbs, so i would need to read a bit more about how to
properly do it in dh)

the interesting question is, whether /usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile is indeed
a good idea and should be done; whether this makefile is then used with CDBS or
dh is another question
personally i would be fine with doing it in CDBS; however others might not
agree, and hans has chosen to use dh rather than cdbs, and i would rather accept
his decision;
given that there are about 20 or more packages, and they are maintained by
several people (the pkgs are all maintained by p-m-m, but still several people
are primarily responsible for the pkgs), i would thus prefer a build-system
agnostic solution rather than have futile discussions on vi/cdbs vs emacs/dh.


PS: but of course the big pro for cdbs is, that its main maintainer is active
here and changes get into the pkg incredibly fast - e.g. my pd.mk snippet
(which, to repeat myself, ended up to NOT be a replacement for the upstream
makefile but rather a debian build system amendement)

PPS: ach ja, and of course i would gladly volunteer to do pd-pkg-tools.

pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list

Reply via email to