Re: Bug#321009: ITP: liblocale-ruby -- extension to the Ruby intepreter for supporting locales
On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 08:47:58PM -0400, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 03, 2005 at 02:40:12PM -0500, David Moreno Garza wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-08-03 at 20:59 +0200, Philipp Kern wrote:
> > > A build system supposed to make Debian packaging easier (the `Common
> > > Debian Build System').
> >
> > The ease of use depends. IMHO, is more cryptic than using debhelper.
It is not cryptic at all, it does not replace debhelper, it is just an
abstraction. I am still discovering but the CDBS makes me see what is
common in all the package work I do.
I don't see the point in writing a debian/rules file and calling all
dh_* script in it. I do acknowledge that CDBS is possibly not useful
for everything, but having packaged 8 Ruby libraries the past two weeks
I've seen they are ALL the same: ruby setup.rb config, setup install
with debhelper files to steer where files are being put.
The small thing that varies is whether there is upstream generated
documentation. Having a class that does all stimulates IMO both
maintaintability and conforiming to policy. I would really like to know
where you expect to lose control and what experiences you have with it.
But, we had this discussion before, so I'll stop nagging now. :)
Note though, that there is CDBS2 coming which should solve some of the
current problems.
> > But this is only a mere visceral opinion. ;-)
>
> I agree, which is why I avoid using it myself.
I would really like to deploy this for my pkg-ruby-extras lib pkgs
instead of having to expand the ruby-setup.mk call to 60 lines of
dh_* calls. If we can't agree on it though, it's no problem to do so.
Paul
--
Student @ Eindhoven | email: paulvt@debian.org
University of Technology, The Netherlands | JID: paul@luon.net
>>> Using the Power of Debian GNU/Linux <<< | GnuPG key ID: 0x50064181
Reply to: