On Sat, Oct 13, 2012 at 03:10:52PM +0000, Thorsten Glaser wrote:
>severity 690381 wishlist
>tags 690381 + wontfix
>thanks
>
>Steve McIntyre dixit:
>
>>includes switching from the well-understood set of calls to debhelper
>>and dpkg-dev programs to something hand-rolled. Please *don't* do
>>this; it's not explicitly required by policy that packagers use these
>>programs, but please consider when other developers might need to work
>>on your package (NMUs for important fixes, security updates
>>etc.).
>
>Right. On the other hand, all those things you mentioned will not touch
>the areas where debhelper is not used, and I’ve seen worse, such as dh7
>('%:\n\tdh $@'), cdbs and Manoj’s buildsystem (no offence).
>
>>The current package setup is going to cause pain.
>
>I respectfully disagree. However, I’ll probably not use it for any
>more packages safe these which already use it.Right. I can see that mksh also follows a similar pattern. Any other packages? FWIW, I've just taken a straw poll of the people around me at a BSP and the consensus of all the people here is "that's insane". Trying to work out what your builds are trying to do took several minutes of close reading for us; we think we may have found behaviour bugs too, but we can't be sure without spending even more effort. Please reconsider your approach - the point of working in Debian on packaging software is to make a nicely-integrated operating system, *not* to try and show just how clever you can be with obfuscating what you're working on. -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
