[Pkg-shadow-devel] build system and debian/rules discussion

[Christine Spang]

On Fri, 2005-10-14 at 06:36 +0200, Christian Perrier wrote:
> I haven't read these discussions or blogs but I trust you here if you
> mention yoou think we shouldn't change things now.

Here's a couple relevant links:
http://kitenet.net/~joey/blog/entry/dpatch_dbs_etc_etc_etc_etc_considered_harmful-2005-10-13-06-35.html
http://blog.madduck.net/debian/2005.10.13-phd-proposal

While the subject originally brought up had to do with dpatch, I've in
fact heard some similar rants on things like cdbs, though until now I
hadn't really seen the whole picture on the level of difficulty that
using a variety of different build and patch helpers throughout the
archives imposes on QA, bug reporters looking over source, etc.

So, taking this into account it would appear that using cdbs would
simplify things in the short run, especially with shadow's current
active packaging team, but in the long run it may just end up being
wasted effort and an added obstacle for other potential contributors.

> I agree with the move to better debhelper use (especially dh_install).

I'll see what I can update in the regular debian/rules when I can find a
few spare minutes (might take a few days). Once these updates are merged
in, we can look into how else we can improve things.

-- 
Brought to you by UNIX: Watch out baby, We're Coming
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-shadow-devel/attachments/20051014/12340dec/attachment.pgp