On Tue, Dec 18, 2012 at 09:09:39PM -0500, Scott Kitterman wrote: > I find the interfaces to the UDD tools very confusing. Here's but one > example (yes, I filed a bug, no I don't recall the number): > > The basic dpkg-buildpackage command to build a source package that will > include the upstream tarball in the upload is: > > dpkg-buildpackage -S -sa > > For the non-UDD dpkg-buildpackage wrapper debuild, one attaches > dpkg-buildpackage options on the end and they are passed to > dpkg-buildpackage: > > debuild -S -sa > > bzr-builddeb has this interface: > > bzr-builddeb -S -- -sa
'bzr bd -- -S -sa' works equally well, and could be the usage recommended in the documentation for consistency. > The biggest benefit of UDD, IMO is that each upload is imported into a VCS > so we have per upload history. That happens no matter how the package is > built or uploaded. All the additional complexity of committing to the VCS > and getting that merged has very minimal benefits for the average > developer. One concrete example where UDD shines and the non-UDD workflow is inadequate is for sponsoring of package merges. If someone hands me a branch that properly merges the new Debian version into the Ubuntu branch, I can review that with the standard bzr diff tools and ascertain that the sponsoree has done the merge correctly. If someone hands me a debdiff for a Debian merge, that's useless; I effectively have to do the merge myself as part of the review, and no time is saved. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. Ubuntu Developer http://www.debian.org/ slanga...@ubuntu.com vor...@debian.org
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
-- ubuntu-devel mailing list ubuntu-devel@lists.ubuntu.com Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
