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

Re: DAK (2)

Brian May <bam@debian.org> writes:

> If I were to clean things up and make DAK easier to use for private
> archives (eg. by isolating all Debian specific stuff, ideally into
> a limited number *.conf files), would somebody be willing
> to commit the changes to CVS?

No one sane agrees to pre-commit changes sight-unseen to CVS.  Show me
the changes, and we'll talk.

> I suspect even though I might have write access to CVS,

Err, no you don't and I have no idea what would made you suspect you

> > like doc/README.names maybe.
> I found that very brief and vague. It is not made clear for instance,
> what programs must be run before, what CWD must be in order to
> run the program, etc.

Duh.  That's not the purpose of that document.  You were whining about
not being able to translate task to script name and vice versa;
doc/README.names does that and that's why I mentioned it.

> Command line parameters are simply not documented anywhere.

Err, bullshit, there's doc/*.1.sgml and --help for most of the key

> Some questions:
> 1. For package installations, DAK will inform both the uploader and the
>    maintainer.

No, that's just the default.  It's possible to override it through the
config file.  (Think about security.d.o: when was the last time you
got notification for a security upload of your package?)

> 2. Where is the code that moves unstable to testing? That does not
>    appear to be here?

It's in the same CVS module in the 'testing' directory.  You could
have found that out yourself, had you bothered to look.

> 3. Could the information in apt.conf be automatically generated from
>    kate.conf?

Not all of it, no.  Some of it, yes.

> 4. When installing a new package (with lisa I think), how do you specify
>    with component {main,contrib,non-free} it will go into?

You don't; the section field specifies that.  That's not a katie
question, that's a general Debian knowledge question and again
something you could have found out yourself, had you bothered to look.

> 5. Debian packaging.

There is debian packaging.  Do you actually bother looking at
_anything_ before posting?  I mean if you'd said "Improve the Debian
packaging" it might not be so offensive but you seem to have a serious
post-first-think/act-later problem.

> Anyway, just some ideas. I am not sure if there is a dedicated
> mailing list for this or not.

There will be shortly.


Reply to: