Web lists-archives.com

Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH




On 5/13/19 3:39 PM, Holger Levsen wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 08:33:44AM -0400, Sam Hartman wrote:
>> 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.
> 
> indeed. using dh should currently be a "should" in policy, with two
> exceptions:
> 
> - packages using cdbs. cdbs has features dh doesnt have and I dont think
>   it's wrong to use cdbs. (Although I don't recommend it...)

If there is really something left where cdbs is better than dh, then
this should be fixed in dh instead.

> - build-depends of debhelper.

gcc also needs a compiler to build - so I think it should be safe to
allow debhelper to build its package using debhelper. Or am I missing
something here?

> Maybe we could also make the "should" stronger:
> 
> - new packages (except if they are ment to become build-depends of
>   debhelper) *must* either use dh or cdbs.
> - old packages should be switched to dh (or cdbs).
> 
> And then turn this "should" into a "must" for bookworm (and thus make it
> RC then as well).

I strongly second this, although I'm not sure if cdbs should be involed
or not, but yes, dh should be used these days and turning that into a
"must" should happen sonner than later in my opinion.



-- 
 Bernd Zeimetz                            Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 http://bzed.de                                http://www.debian.org
 GPG Fingerprint: ECA1 E3F2 8E11 2432 D485  DD95 EB36 171A 6FF9 435F

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature