Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
- Date: Tue, 21 May 2019 12:14:32 +0300
- From: Adrian Bunk <bunk@xxxxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Do we want to Require or Recommend DH
On Tue, May 21, 2019 at 09:40:38AM +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
> ❦ 19 mai 2019 23:53 -04, Sam Hartman <hartmans@xxxxxxxxxx>:
> > >> As promised, I'd like to start a discussion on whether we want to
> > >> recommend using the dh command from debhelper as our preferred
> > >> build system.
> > Sean> For those who haven't seen it, the original author of dh, Joey
> > Sean> Hess, has just published a blog post relevant to the
> > Sean> discussion we're having:
> > I've read the blog post.
> > I think Joey's points are very consistent with our discussion here.
> Is there an example of a package where dh cannot be used? Making 96% of
> packages simpler and 4% of packages moderately more complex seems to be
> a good argument to uniformize our packaging practices towards dh.
This would be less uniform that it sounds.
Technically a package that overrides *all* dh targets with something
completely different is using dh.
And the result of someone spending several man months on converting
the Debian Haskell scripts to dh might be relatively close to that.
As an example, look at
You can see by the path that /usr/share/cdbs/1/class/hlibrary.mk
uses CDBS, but if it would use dh instead this wouldn't make
a huge difference here.
As developer you are not usually working directly with low-level
CDBS or dh functionality, what you are using is the higher level
haskell-devscripts functionality built on top of that.
If you ever have to use low-level CDBS or dh functionality directly,
then things can get really messy since you might break what
haskell-devscripts is doing.
DEB_ENABLE_TESTS is an API provided by haskell-devscripts.
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed