[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Debian derivatives guidelines: popcon

Paul Wise left as an exercise for the reader:
> On the topic of popcon and derivatives, I've just started a discussion
> and sent a couple of patches to move popcon to be less Debian centric
> and more friendly to derivatives.
> http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/popcon-developers/2012-October/002171.html

Nice work!

> That work will be relying on dpkg-vendor information being correct,
> please check your base-files.

Is this a sufficient test set?

[skynet](1) $ dpkg-vendor --is sprezzatech
[skynet](0) $ dpkg-vendor --is debian
[skynet](1) $ dpkg-vendor --derives-from debian
[skynet](0) $ dpkg-vendor --derives-from sprezzatech
[skynet](0) $ 

Return values are in parens on the line following the command. I'm surprised
that --derives-from sprezzatech returns 0, but on a clean Debian install,
--derives-from debian returns 0 as well, so that's at least consistent.

This raises a question: a few of our packages are adapted from Ubuntu
packages, though the great majority are from Debian or native. Is there any
protocol for including this relationship overall (ie in origins info)?
We're using the parent package's Maintainer: field for
XSBC-Original-Maintainer either way, so information is accurate on a
per-package basis.

nick black     http://www.sprezzatech.com -- unix and hpc consulting
to make an apple pie from scratch, you need first invent a universe.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: