On 24.03.21 15:37, Simon Richter wrote: > The vast majority of the software we ship works fine with a two-line > systemd unit and three debhelper control files, and that is exactly what we > should be using for these cases, but we cannot generalize that to a > requirement, and people wishing to contribute to packages not served well > by the abstraction will continue to need to look under the hood.
Not to diminish your detailed assessment (which I agree with), but just to clarify: with "standardize", I was thinking more of a de-facto standard as you describe it in the first sentence, and not a hard requirement. I just vividly remember how difficult it used to be to contribute to some of the other packages even as a DD, and appreciate how much easier it has become. And for packages that make use of Salsa's rich features (like merge requests, pipelines, etc), I think the experience is even better. Although I admit that this is highly subjective. Best, Christian PS: I mentioned debhelper a few times, when I actually mean "dh". Recognizing the fact that most software more or less follows one or the other build procedure, auto-guessing it, and then enabling the escape hatches that you mentioned was a brilliant idea.