Web lists-archives.com

Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH

Hi Sam,

On 2019-05-13 12:33, Sam Hartman wrote:
> The New Maintainer's Guide [1] already is based around debhelper and dh
> and effectively recommends it strongly.  So it wouldn't mean that.
>   [1]: https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/

Several years ago I nearly re-translated maint-guide into Simplified
due to it's severely outdated .po strings. That means, all I know about
packaging is based on Joey's debhelper. This will be the same to
who start with a debhelper based document.

> using dh.  That is, is not using dh a bug.
> [omitted]
> And at some level I think we're asking whether it is appropriate to NMU
> a package to convert it to dh.
> [omitted]
> Today at least I don't think we're talking about making not using dh an
> RC bug.  It would not make a lot of sense to me to start there.
> [omitted]
> so, what do you think?

Keep the old stuff as is if they don't break and don't introduce
maintainance issue. Anything related to diversity, including packaging
helper diversity, should be carefully considered in this community.
We still remember how people react on the systemd v.s. sysv discussion.
So I respect the minority-tools such as cdbs, or any alike, because
there are still people who like them and I respect these people.

That said, I suggest that we recommend team-maintained packages to be
debhelper(dh)-based. That's because not many people can understand
minority helpers such as cdbs. For example, when I see a broken
team-maintained packaging that is written in cdbs, I'll simply
give up trying to understand anything.

In brief:
* if maintained by person: no restriction, given that
  the maintainer is not MIA
* if team-maintained: recommend dh