Re: Cdbs Features
- Date: Wed, 22 May 2019 13:13:59 +0200
- From: Marco d'Itri <md@xxxxxxxx>
- Subject: Re: Cdbs Features
On May 22, Wouter Verhelst <wouter@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > I think at this point we can recommend dh, and require debhelper (i.e., > the individual dh_* tools could be required to be part of the build > system, but how they are called can be left to a maintainer's > discretion, with the assumption that "you use dh or perhaps cdbs, except > if you're trying to develop something better, but then you still use > debhelper behind the scenes to do the low-level work" This looks reasonable to me too. (Now I am almost sold on dh, BTW.) -- ciao, Marco
Description: PGP signature
- Prev by Date: Re: Bits from /me: A humble draft policy on "deep learning v.s. freedom"
- Next by Date: Re: Bits from /me: A humble draft policy on "deep learning v.s. freedom"
- Previous by thread: Re: Cdbs Features
- Next by thread: Re: Cdbs Features