Web lists-archives.com

Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH

On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 12:54 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> On Tue, May 14, 2019 at 10:38:06AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Tue, 2019-05-14 at 11:07 +0200, Andreas Tille wrote:
> > > 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*.
> Please call me over-picky but without checking the history is your
> "most" not a sign that there is at least one change to d/rules which was
> needed to fix some lintian issue.

I can only see one change that dh would have handled for us.

> I do not want you to change linux
> d/rules file and I think it is pretty safe from beeing NMUed just to
> switch to dh.

Indeed.  There is definitely scope for simplification, but it takes a
lot of knowledge and time to do that.

Given what others have said, I doubt that dh in its current state could
handle the multiple configurations, which is a shame.

> My point was that I doubt that any "working for years"
> d/rules has no lintian issues.

If "working for years" also implies unchanged for years, yes I agree.


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