Stefano Zacchiroli <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Mon, Oct 08, 2007 at 09:34:14PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote: >> > On the other hand one could argue that dpkg-buildpackage should >> > intentionally remain simple and that people are expected to write >> > their own wrappers or replacements if they need. >> > >> > What do you think? >> >> I personally think it ought to be kept simple since is very easy to >> write other more "feature-rich" wrappers around it. >> >> It needs to support all basic features of dpkg but no more then that. > > In principle I agree with that. > > However as a matter of fact nowadays is not that easy to switch from one > dpkg-buildpackage wrapper to the another, due to the variety of needed > configurations, different invocation APIs and such and such (here I'm > thinking at the ones I've used so far in my DD experience: > dpkg-buildpackage itself, debuild, pbuilder, cowbuilder, > {svn,bzr,git,...}-buildpackage. > > *If* (I'm not sure it will) integrating some of their features directly > in dpkg-buildpackage can ease the switching from one to the other I > would say: go and implement them in dpkg-buildpackage.
Personally I think it's a different problem. A week ago I was talking to Arnaud (squashfs Debian maintainer, on Cc) and we were talking about this problem and we think the best way to avoid this problem is to have a common place for configuration so all those wrappers avoid duplicated settings. It would be better to offer a way to set and get settings in a common way and then make all those tools to use it. This would make the switch much easier. -- O T A V I O S A L V A D O R --------------------------------------------- E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br --------------------------------------------- "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]