Re: Need experienced perl module maintainer for a second pair of eyes on my package
On Sun, 7 Oct 2001 10:26:10 -0500, Ardo van Rangelrooij
>Marc Haber (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:
>> > - Why is there an empty /usr/lib/perl5 directory in your package?
>> Because the Makefile generated by MakeMaker makes that directory on
>> install. I now delete it after installation. Any idea how to make
>> MakeMaker stop generating that directory?
>I noticed you're still doing a 'pure_install'. Try doing an 'install' and see whether
>that fixes this problem. I never had to remove directories manually.
Even which pure_install, the empty dir is created. I don't understand
the difference from pure_install to install anyway, the rules file of
the package I used as an example last year invoked pure_install.
>> > - The debian/rules is not in accordance with the Perl Policy, e.g
>> > you shouldn't define PERL,
>> Fixed. I don't exactly understand why, though.
>In cases like this I simply follow policy.
Where in the Perl Policy is that mentioned? I must have overlooked
>> > you define
>> > INSTALLDIRS=perl5 but you don't use it, etc.
>> That is not a policy violation ;)
>> Fixed anyway.
>I know, but I like things as clean as possible.
Me too. That's why I fixed them.
> - The binary-arch target has a build dependency. Why? Your package is
> arch independent, so it shouldn't do anything for arch specific.
I still don't fully grasp the indep and non-indep stuff. The rules
file was simply adopted from a potato package. I guess I'd better take
a more current file. I have taken one of your packages and made a new
rules file. It is always better to take example code from people who
are already helping.
> - Why did you comment out dh_md5sums?
Not sure, that was taken over from my example.
> - You have the order of dh_installdeb and dh_perl reversed from mine. Any
> particular reason?
No, that was taken over from my example.
>I'm not sure it would make a difference, but it could.
Sounds more sensible to do dh_perl first.
> - Why do you have a 'dh_clean -k'? I'm not sure, but removing the '-k' can
> also make it possible to remove the line 'rm -f debian/files'.
Yes, you're right.
> - Why do you 'manually' remove all the different stamps? You don't use any
> of them.
Taken over from the example.
> - Why the 'rm -f Makefile.old'?
Because it is sometimes left over, for example if make clean is done
manually, and then debian/rules clean invoked.
> - You should install the upstream Changes via 'dh_installchangelogs' and not
> via 'dh_installdocs'.
Need to keep dh_installdocs for the README, though.
I have put this version again on
http://q.bofh.de/~mh/debian/libnet-ipnetmember-perl. May I ask for a
hopefully final look?
-------------------------------------- !! No courtesy copies, please !! -----
Marc Haber | " Questions are the | Mailadresse im Header
Karlsruhe, Germany | Beginning of Wisdom " | Fon: *49 721 966 32 15
Nordisch by Nature | Lt. Worf, TNG "Rightful Heir" | Fax: *49 721 966 31 29