El 07/11/08 22:46 Peter Samuelson escribió: > > On Thu, Nov 06, 2008 at 12:34:26PM -0300, Felipe Sateler wrote: > > > Equivs uses debhelper (for reasons I do not know, seems completely > > > overkill for me), which means it is much slower than building a > > > bare package manually. > > As the equivs maintainer, I'm intrigued: is this actually noticeable > enough to be annoying to you? It never even occurred to me that it > would be better for equivs to construct packages without debhelper > because of speed.
I created a hacky script to do this thing a while ago, and when devscripts started shipping mk-build-deps I noticed the difference. Nowadays I use http://sourcedeps.debian.net/, so I don't use this tool much anymore, but there is a difference (it's just creating a few files in a dir and then calling dpkg-deb, versus 10+ dh_* calls that do nothing). > debhelper does take some burden off its users in > terms of keeping up with Policy compliance issues, and it makes the > template files pretty readable. However, metapackages created by mk-build-deps (I'm not sure of other uses for equivs) are empty packages, so making them policy compliant isn't difficult (no to mention that I don't see the need for them to be, although it's nice to have that). > [Patrick Schoenfeld] > > > Personally I don't think that "much faster" is of much relevance for a > > tool that takes about 2-3 seconds and is used max some times a day. > > Makes me wonder, though, if people really do find equivs too slow. I found it annoying, because the normal use of equivs for me is when dpkg-buildpackage complains that the build-deps aren't satisfied, thus I have to wait for it to complete and then install the deb to build the package. Although the time involved is short, it's annoying because it requires attention. Saludos, Felipe Sateler
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
