Pn, 2006 04 14 09:48 +0200, Christian Perrier rašė: > OK. That raises the two small concerns I had. I'm now building the > package and will upload it. Thanks. > Anyway, I'd be interested to hear about what makes you dislike cdbs > ...I prefer arguments than just feelings (which does not mean I won't > understand your arguments...). > > My own opinion is that cdbs makes builds more consistent and avoids > maintainers to care about changing stuff, for instance in debhelper, > to better concentrate on issues that are specific to their packages. This is the excerpt from one Jeroen van Wolffelaar email on the debian-mentors list, and I agree with him: - What's going on is mostly clear, it's (debhelper) in fact 'basicly' a library of command snippets - debhelper(7) contains a list of all the available dh_foo programs, and a short description of each. That should give you hints of what stuff can be done with it. - No makefile fu, easily debuggeable because there's a clear place to put extra code at each step, and because of DH_VERBOSE. Flow of control is easy when not having expert makefile fu in debian/rules, and most people are no makefile experts - No need to migrate away from cdbs at any time you need to do something complicated not catered for in cdbs (in cdbs you require to have hooks available for what you want, rather than that being automatically available) - Does not encourage evil things like build-time rewriting of debian/control - Much more mature, cdbs is still in high flux, and iirc a rewrite (cdbs2) is planned or underway - And last but not least, debhelper is used in much more packages than cdbs, and greater familiarity exists amongst DD's and other maintainers -- Kęstutis Biliūnas <kebil@kaunas.init.lt>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: =?iso-8859-2?Q?=A9i?= =?iso-8859-2?Q?_lai=B9ko?= dalis yra =?iso-8859-2?Q?pasira=B9yta?= skaitmeniniu =?iso-8859-4?Q?b=FEdu?=