d-shlibs (Was: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH)
- Date: Tue, 14 May 2019 12:50:54 +0200
- From: Andreas Tille <andreas@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: d-shlibs (Was: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH)
On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 01:12:17PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 11:30:11AM +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 10:22:32PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> > > > >things simple for team mates. I consider it a valid request to every
> > > > >single maintainer to respect that other people have good reasons to
> > > > >change her/his package.
> > > >...
> > >
> > > Based on this rationale, Andreas should stop using d-shlibs.
> > >
> > > Weird tools on top of dh are not that different from using a weird
> > > buildsystem when debugging other peoples packages, and d-shlibs is
> > > something I've seen involved in bugs more than once.
> > Its the first time that I hear criticism about d-shlibs usage
> It is fine in the current "maintainer can do anything" world.
Hmmm, I don't get it: I'm using dh and in addition I'm using a tool
that enforces library packaging policy.
> > and I'm
> > fine with discussing this but I'd prefer not to spoil the current
> > thread.
> It is actually part of it, due to:
> > As far as I understood the point of the discussion is that we want to
> > get the whole archive more uniform to reduce the potential causes for
> > bugs *in* *the* *future*.
> If this is the point, then weird tools on top of dh are part of the
> problem just as weird buildsystems are.
d-shlibs is not really on top of dh. Its invoked with override_*
and thus clearly separate from dh.
[Haskell-example snipped since I think this was discussed somewhere