Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
- Date: Wed, 15 May 2019 16:33:49 +0100
- From: Jonathan Dowland <jmtd@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
On Mon, May 13, 2019 at 05:58:47PM +0200, Thomas Goirand wrote:
Why would one want to switch that one to something else? The package,
basically, consists of a shell script and a man page only. The
minimalism of this package doesn't require an over-engineered dh
sequencer, does it?
I maintain one of the simplest possible packages (in non-free),
doom-wad-shareware, that is even simpler: it consists of three files total:
For the source package, I thought "why do I need debhelper for such a simple
package". And so I did things by hand instead¹, and I still screwed something
This is clearly a stupid case of premature optimisation, yak shaving, etc.; I
suspect many other instances of "why bother for such a simple package" in the
archive have elements of these too.
(An unrelated, but amusing mess-up in this trivial package: for the first 11
years, there was a version mismatch between what was actually in the .deb and
what the version claimed)
⣾⠁⢠⠒⠀⣿⡁ Jonathan Dowland
⠈⠳⣄⠀⠀⠀⠀ Please do not CC me, I am subscribed to the list.