dh & dhmk

[Sandro Knauß]

Hey,

last year with Standards-Versions 4.4.0 "dh" as labeled as recommended way to 
package. And also a lintian tag was created "no-dh-sequencer" that let me 
wonder, if we also should switch to dh or should I add lintian-overrides?
I don't have any insights into build sequencer and why the team choose dhmk in 
first place. Are the points still valid raised by pino Jan 2018:

> export DEB_LDFLAGS_MAINT_APPEND := -Wl,--as-needed

this is not needed anymore as it is the default right now.

> * disabling --no-undefined -- OK, not used nowadays, but it was briefly
> needed for few packages in the past (IIRC)
 
> * library-packages.mk & libpkgs_gen_strict_local_shlibs, which hooks
> into dhmk
 
Isn't this supported with dh 12:
- The dh_makeshlibs tool now generates shlibs files with versioned dependency 
by default.  This means that -VUpstream-Version (a.k.a. -V) is now the 
default.

> * l10n-packages.mk & l10npkgs_firstversion_ok, which hooks into dhmk

the l10n packages were removed witch stretch and we don't need this anymore

> * $(overridden_command), which takes care of invoking the command of
> the override with all the needed parameters; while this seems trivial
> to replace, imagine all the times -S/--buildsystem=kde/kf5 was
> forgotten when overriding dh_auto_configure... which makes all the
> Frameworks 5.41.0 in experimental :-) (thanks for proving my point)
> 
> * it automatically uses the right addons (kf5 and pkgkde_symbolshelper)
> with no need to repeat them -- I recently thought about using sodeps
> by default (and simplify dependencies in control for -dev packages a
> bit)

hefee
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://alioth-lists.debian.net/pipermail/pkg-kde-talk/attachments/20200501/c6f69a64/attachment.sig>