Re: RFS: minidlna
- To: debian-mentors@lists.debian.org
- Subject: Re: RFS: minidlna
- From: Benoît Knecht <benoit.knecht@fsfe.org>
- Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010 13:49:04 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 20101103124904.GA26219@debian.lan>
- In-reply-to: <20101029122754.GW85092@l04.local>
- References: <20101015082302.GA21577@debian.lan> <AANLkTinCsuXnX5TT9Z9rXTRA6BScD1KHqZ3=OqPABnDz@mail.gmail.com> <20101022125318.GA21811@debian.lan> <20101029085200.GK85092@l04.local> <20101029101046.GA12753@debian.lan> <20101029101749.GO85092@l04.local> <20101029121408.GB12753@debian.lan> <20101029122754.GW85092@l04.local>
Hi Michael,
Sorry for the delay, but I've been awfully busy over the week end.
Michael Tautschnig wrote:
> > It seems like a clever thing to do in {pre,post}inst: there's no need to
> > create a default minidlna user:group if something else is already set in
> > the default file; I'm just unsure if it should create the user:group
> > found in the default file if they do not exist already (if they do not
> > exist, they were most likely removed by the user manually, and
> > re-creating them silently as system users seems like a bad idea).
> >
> > And in postrm, I would not remove any user:group except
> > minidlna:minidlna, which was normally created by preinst.
> >
> > Is this what you had in mind? I'll implement those changes, and upload a
> > new version soon.
>
> Well, actually I would have been ok with the naive use&create/remove whatever
> the user specified in defaults; but you're absolutely right, you could and
> should be more careful here. I think it would be fine to abort in case user and
> group are not equal to minidlna and do not exist.
I just uploaded a new version (1.0.18-3) [1] that addresses all the
issues you've pointed out to me (except the missing license headers,
I'll ask upstream about that).
I hope I didn't miss anything, but please let me know if there are any
problems left.
Cheers,
--
Benoît Knecht
---
[1] http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/m/minidlna
Reply to: