Re: Bug#567770: e16 RC bugs
On 11 October 2010 19:16, Laurence J. Lane <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl
> <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> PS: My understanding was, that you would prefer to add /etc/e16 to the
>> searchpath for config files of e16 itself; as you can see I haven't
>> implemented that, but tried to fix "my" symlinks. I thought that would
>> be the prefered way to do that, as a) it is less intrusive than changing
>> upstream stuff and b) you can always add the searchpath thing yourself;
>> (re)moving the configfiles from /etc/e16 will in that case just lead to
>> modified files being left there.
> I don't recall ever discussing the package or NMU with you. Your changes
> to the package clearly do not represent my interests.
I'm more than happy to leave it to Alexander to fix this up.
Comments on the NMU diff now proposed for 567770: I would probably
have added the links to debian/e16-data.links... I realise there's a
comment explaining that dh has already processed it, but I don't buy
it. Not sure about all the 'mv' commands, either - autoreconf is
already getting called, and I would personally patch
config/Makefile.am. Also, is there any chance a loop could make the
maintainer scripts shorter?
(The above is all a matter of style, however, and I'd prefer a working
package to a removed one.)
I might be missing something, but if the user upgraded to 1.0.0-3.1
from a previous version, would /usr/share/e16/config not be an empty
directory? So won't the rm -f in the preinst fail? I had vague plans
to test this.
Take this all with a pinch of salt; it's ridiculous o'clock over here. :)
Tim Retout <email@example.com>