= Should we use debhelper? Why? Any exceptions? Did you used it before (which package)? =

== Eddy Petrișor ==

Yes. Ubiquity, largely accepted, does the right thing. No. Yes (oolite, aspell-ro - unofficial).

== Miriam Ruiz ==

Yes, I think Debhelper is so commonly used that most of the maintainers know how to handle it. It provides so many pros that I'm totally for it.

== Linas Žvirblis ==

Yes. Works in a predictable way, can be used even if a package does not provide any build system. No. Yes, all of them.

== Reinhard Tartler ==

Debhelper is well documented, behaves as expected, has responsive and responsible maintainer.

== Alexander Schmehl ==

Yes; debhelper is the defacto standard of building packages, and that's for a good reason:
It's well documented and tested, it's used very often and therefore designed to fit maintainers
needs, and is a very good compromise between "making it easy for the maintainer" and
"doesn't hide what it is doing".

== Jon Dowland ==

Yes: Ubiquitious, recommended by the maint-guide.

== Sam Hocevar ==
Yes.

== Andres Mejia ==
Yes. Does the job extremely well. Excellent when no configure or make scripts are available upstream or when the build process is otherwise not standard. Overall a great tool when some flexibility is needed for package builds.