Re: RFS: Tunapie
On (26/09/06 07:15), James Stone wrote:
> On Tue, 26 Sep 2006 00:31:07 +0100, James Westby wrote:
>
> > - add a copyright/license statement about your packaging.
>
> Can you give an example of what you mean?
http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2006/03/msg00023.html
>
> > * Does your adult/safe debconf stuff work correctly with the new
> > python policy? Does your package even conform?
>
> AFAIK yes, but could you elaborate on your concerns?
I haven't done a package with private modules yet so I don't know how to
make them work with the policy, but you don't use python-support or
python-central. Also you seemto compile you private modules for
python2.3 and then you have
#!/usr/bin/python
which now points to 2.4. Apologies if I am wrong about this, and please
enlighten me. I didn't actually test as there were other problems to
fix.
>
> > * You call update-menu in post*, what package is this program from? *
>
> Not sure what you mean.
> Can you expand?
You call update-menu in your postinst, but I can't find that command in
any package, what does it do? Do you mean update-menus? If you do that
will be added by dh_installmenu.
> > * Consider adding a watch file.
>
> OK.. I will have to find out how to do this with SF.
It's no different now, just point it at sf.net and it will do the
rewriting internally.
>
> > * Is debconf really the best way of doing the adult/safe
> > configuration?
>
> It is the only way I can think of. Do you have any better ideas?
Make it safe by default and add a script to change between them? Make it
an /etc/tunapie.conf choice? debconf should be used sparingly. I didn't
even look what priority your questions were.
>
> I have uploaded 1.0.1-4 again. I will make the other changes you suggest
> once I completely understand all your points.
>
Post another request when you are happy with the package and I will
finish my review.
James
--
James Westby -- GPG Key ID: B577FE13 -- http://jameswestby.net/
seccure key - (3+)k7|M*edCX/.A:n*N!>|&7U.L#9E)Tu)T0>AM - secp256r1/nistp256
Reply to: