Re: DAK (2)
On Wed, Dec 11, 2002 at 01:11:08AM +0000, James Troup wrote:
> Err, bullshit, there's doc/*.1.sgml and --help for most of the key
> scripts.
[1106] [snoopy:unstable:bam] ~/cvswork/dak >helena --help
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "helena", line 206, in ?
main();
File "helena", line 192, in main
apt_pkg.ParseCommandLine(Cnf,[],sys.argv);
SystemError: Command line option --help is not understood
no doc/helena* file either.
This seems to be common for all the programs I have tried
so far.
> > 1. For package installations, DAK will inform both the uploader and the
> > maintainer.
>
> No, that's just the default. It's possible to override it through the
> config file. (Think about security.d.o: when was the last time you
> got notification for a security upload of your package?)
How do you change it?
Is it possible to just have it mail the uploader?
> > 5. Debian packaging.
>
> There is debian packaging. Do you actually bother looking at
> _anything_ before posting? I mean if you'd said "Improve the Debian
> packaging" it might not be so offensive but you seem to have a serious
> post-first-think/act-later problem.
errr.... I don't consider this to be Debian packaging:
katie (0notforuse0-0) unstable; urgency=low
* Initial non-release. [The packaging is nowhere near complete; don't
* bother trying to use it unaltered.]
-- James Troup <james@nocrew.org> Tue, 25 Sep 2001 22:59:17 +0100
If this actually has been tested and does generate a valid package,
I stand corrected; but this comment makes it look like it never
has been tested.
The date and version also put me off just a little bit too.
PS. I am not trying to insult you, I am just trying to work out
if DAK can fit my needs ot not.
So far I would like to think that DAK will fit my needs, but there
still are issues I mentioned in my other E-Mail.
Looking at DAK for the first time is very much information overload,
so it isn't always easy to find details no matter how obvious they
may appear to be to someone more experienced.
--
Brian May <bam@debian.org>
Reply to: