On 11-04-24 at 09:39pm, IOhannes m zmoelnig wrote: > 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". > e.g. > <cdbs> > include /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/makefile.mk > DEB_MAKE_MAKEFILE=/usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile > </cdbs> > > and > <dh> > %: > dh $@ --buildsystem=makefile > > dh_auto_build_override: > dh_auto_build -- -f /usr/share/pd-pkg-tools/Makefile > </dh> > > 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. > > mfgasdr > IOhannes > > 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.
I fully agree with keeping most possible as a distro-agnostic upstream Makefile. I was not trying to advocate CDBS here. :-) - Jonas -- * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt * Tlf.: +45 40843136 Website: http://dr.jones.dk/ [x] quote me freely [ ] ask before reusing [ ] keep private
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ pkg-multimedia-maintainers mailing list firstname.lastname@example.org http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-multimedia-maintainers