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.