Re: RFS: uhub (closes ITP bug)
> (Please don't CC me, when replying to list mail)
Ok, I have just read interesting document:
http://catb.org/%7Eesr/faqs/smart-questions.html
I have never used mailing lists befor.
It's a little bit archaic method of interaction...
>>> It would also be nice if you'd describe how exactly the .orig.tar.bz2
>>> is generated: is it downloaded from the specified location as-is? Is
>>> it repackaged in one way or the other? (I suppose so, the debian/ dir
>>> is not present in the .orig.tar.gz)
>>
>> All necessary information available in debian/copyright file:
>> https://github.com/tehnick/uhub-debian/blob/master/debian/copyright#L7
>>
>> The GitHub has no possibility to make bzip tarballs from git tags
>> automatically. So only zip archive and gzip tarballs are available there.
>
> Yeah, I know how GitHub works, but those two lines don't tell me what
> you wrote just above: that it's the same as the tarball from github,
> except it's bz2 and debian/ is not included in the orig.tar.gz.
>
> This is the information I'd like to see in the copyright file, as it
> tells me exactly what steps were taken to generate the
> tarball. Otherwise I have to guess and double-check, and I'm waaay too
> lazy to do that.
I really don't understand that do you want. Present information is enough
to make own tarball.
Or maybe should I cite you in this file? Smth. like that:
"It's the same as the tarball from github, except it's bz2 and debian/
is not included in the orig.tar.gz"
But this is absolutely the same...
>> So .orig.tar.bz2 formed in such way:
>> https://github.com/tehnick/deb_packages/blob/master/Debian/uhub/automatic_update_uhub#L77
>
> This could be included in the package sources, perhaps even worked into
> debian/rules get-orig-source. That'd be awesome.
Ok, I'll make it.
"awesome"? In what sense?
>>> I would suggestshipping the directory in the deb with that
>>> permission already, and drop the postinst.
>>
>> This is bad idea:
>> W: uhub: non-standard-dir-perm var/log/uhub/ 0750 != 0755
>> N:
>> N: The directory has a mode different from 0755, and it's not one of the
>> N: known exceptions.
>> N:
>> N: Refer to Debian Policy Manual section 10.9 (Permissions and owners) for
>> N: details.
>> N:
>> N: Severity: normal, Certainty: possible
>> N:
>> N: Check: files, Type: binary, udeb
>
> Note the Certainty: possible. Also, quoting the first two sentences of
> the referenced section:
>
> "The rules in this section are guidelines for general use. If necessary
> you may deviate from the details below. "
>
> I believe that setting /var/lib/uhub to 0750 in the deb, instead of the
> postinst is a good enough reason to deviate from the recommendation, and
>override the lintian warning.
>
> On the other hand, there exist packages in the archive that do this in
> postinst, so.. whichever way you prefer.
I have tried to follow by your recommendations.
I have added file uhub.lintian-overrides:
https://github.com/tehnick/uhub-debian/blob/master/debian/uhub.lintian-overrides
But I still get the same lintian warning.
What am I doing wrong?
>>>* Other notes
>>>
>>> Since uhub seems to have the option of being compiled with SSL
>>> support, it might be a good idea to enable that, perhaps?
>>
>> In this stable release SSL support is very experimental on my opinion.
>> But in current developing version it is quite good. So I will enable this
>> option in the next stable release.
>
> Fair enough!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=fair%20enough
Hmm, such different meaning... =)
Reply to: