Re: Code cleanup: take 1
On Saturday 02 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> > None of these should be removed.
> > The *only* one which could possibly be discussed in this list is
> > sarge-support.
>
> That's one.
Only after discussion. IMO it's useful to keep it as an example as it's
the most elaborate <codename>-support package we have. And as I'm the
author and only listed uploader of the package I think I'm entitled to a
rather heavy say in this...
It could make sense to move all <codename>-support packages under a subdir
if ppl think they clutter up the packages dir too much.
> On Saturday 02 May 2009, Frans Pop wrote:
> > On Saturday 02 May 2009, Luk Claes wrote:
> > > * linux-modules-di-m68k-2.6
> >
> > This one actually could be removed.
>
> That's two.
>
> Why would removal from the modules package be ok and not removal from
> the kernel package or the bootloader installer btw? What's special with
> the modules package?
Check the status of the package...
It's never been uploaded because loop-aes is (was?) not available for
m68k. In general I doubt there's any real interest of having encrypted
file systems on m68k (performance penalty), which is the only real
function the package has.
> > [1] Which is only included in the list because it looks like Luk was
> > somewhat sloppy when checking whether "a package is in the archive".
>
> Not at all, that package is not in the archive, some people where
> sloppy with not renaming the directory name in the repository
sysconfig-writer is the name it was originally committed under. Nothing
sloppy there. I still do think it's sloppy not to check the control file
when the directory name cannot be found. Having the directory name equal
to the source package name is nothing more than a convention.
dasd and netdevice originally also did not have the s390-prefix in their
directory name, but were renamed at some point because it simplified
l10n-related scripting (sysconfig-writer has no strings). Possibly
sysconfig-writer should also have been done at that point, but *shrug*.
> apparently. Would it be fine for me to rename the directory?
I have no objection to that, but only if you also rename the tag directory
for the package.
Reply to: