cdbs vs dh (was: uploaded first pkg: pd-motex)

[Benjamin Drung]

Am Freitag, den 13.08.2010, 10:40 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> On Thu, Aug 12, 2010 at 11:43:51PM +0200, Benjamin Drung wrote:
> >Am Donnerstag, den 12.08.2010, 23:38 +0200 schrieb Jonas Smedegaard:
> >> [1] or agree to repackage using cdbs - I just won't you to get the 
> >> impression that I lured you into this: most people in the multimedia 
> >> team are fine with - yeah, even prefer - short-form dh, it is just me 
> >> being obnoxious.
> >
> >I prefer dh over cdbs over long debhelper form. Are there any technical 
> >reasons for not using dh?
> 
> Good question. Thanks for asking!
> 
> CDBS is more backports-friendly (beyond backports.org too!).

That's true. Using bleeding edge packaging tools make backporting
harder.

> CDBS provides routines to fetch and repackage upstream tarballs

I don't use this feature, but it could be useful.

> CDBS provides routines to track copyright and licensing info of sources.

That's nice. Where do I can read more about it?

> CDBS is less invasive - e.g. can be used with manually run dh_* commands

You can use override_dh_* to run a dh_* command manually.

> CDBS is written in make (short-form dh somewhat reinvents make in Perl)

Yes, but Makefile rules can get complicated. Do you want an example? I
like dh because it's simple.

-- 
Benjamin Drung
Ubuntu Developer (www.ubuntu.com) | Debian Maintainer (www.debian.org)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Dies ist ein digital signierter Nachrichtenteil
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20100813/02b67122/attachment.pgp>