xvidcore broken - ok to use CDBS?

[Jonas Smedegaard]

On Mon, Sep 13, 2010 at 07:58:58AM -0400, Felipe Sateler wrote:
>On 13/09/10 07:52, Fabian Greffrath wrote:
>>
>>> * I will no longer offer my help with issues that could be solved
>>> using either short-form dh or CDBS - except when CDBS is already used.
>>
>> But I still fail to understand this point. If for example a package 
>> using short-form dh7 in debian/rules needs a patch to the source or 
>> is missing a file reference in debian/foo.install, what keeps you 
>> from contributing?
>
>The issue at hand was solvable by either:
>
>1- Dropping the patch, using a CDBS feature
>2- Dropping the patch, using dh-autoreconf
>3- Modifying the patch.
>
>From what I understand, jonas was offering 1. When short-form dh is 
>used, _any_ modification to debian/rules needs understanding of short 
>form dh. So he is saying that he will no longer offer help for cases 
>like this one, which can be solved by features either in CDBS or in dh.

That is correctly understood.

As an aside, I personally believe that CDBS "infected" rules files are 
easier hackable by non-CDBS developers than short-form dh "infected" 
ones, but respect if others feel similarly alienated by CDBS as I do by 
short-form dh.


Kind regards,

  - Jonas

-- 
  * Jonas Smedegaard - idealist & Internet-arkitekt
  * Tlf.: +45 40843136  Website: http://dr.jones.dk/

  [x] quote me freely  [ ] ask before reusing  [ ] keep private
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
URL: <http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-multimedia-maintainers/attachments/20100913/5d25aa1b/attachment.pgp>