Web lists-archives.com

Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH

On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 11:07 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 04:22:49PM +0200, Thibaut Paumard wrote:
> > > Why Not Make this Change
> > > ========================
> > 
> > I would use dh for any new package and converting trivial packages is...
> > trivial. However converting a package with a more convoluted rules files
> > will take humanpower. While it may be justified to convert a mildly
> > complex rules file on a package that has some activity, I don't think I
> > would invest those resources to convert a package that's been working
> > for years without anyone touching it's rules files.
> Can you give an example for a package that has a non-dh rules file
> "working for years" that gives as a result a package with no lintian
> warnings without changing this d/rules file?

linux is one.

I did a lot of work to address lintian warnings last year, and most of
that did not involve debian/rules*.


Ben Hutchings
I haven't lost my mind; it's backed up on tape somewhere.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part