Re: RFC: ssl-cert2 design
On Fri, 28 Jul 2006 10:53:22 +0100, James Westby <email@example.com> said:
> On (28/07/06 10:03), Lars Wirzenius wrote:
>> pe, 2006-07-28 kello 00:03 +0100, James Westby kirjoitti:
>> > * Make it easier for package maintainers
>> > - One extra dh_ call and maybe one more file in debian/
>> How badly is this tied to debhelper? Any chance of designing it so
>> that it doesn't require debhelper?
> Why does this concern you? I thought debhelper was fairly standard
> use today.
It concerns me since I do not use helper packages in my
packaging. Debhelper, while pretty popular, is by no means mandatory,
> But, yes, like all of debhelper it's just a convenience wrapper. If
> your package is very simple then in the postinst add
Well, my packages are not simple, but I still prefer to hand
> if [ "$1" = "configure" ]; then
> make-ssl-cert2 package
> and in postinst
> if [ "$1" = "purge" ]; then
> make-ssl-cert2 -r package || true
> The dh_ script merely does this for you after adding any extra
> arguments to make-ssl-cert that you have requested with your
> debian/package.certificate file.
This is perfectly fine, as long as there is a man page for
> So, if you are merely concerned that it is /possible/ to do it
> without a dh_ call, then it certainly is. But I think it is a good
> idea to use it, as if the "policy" changes in this respect then a
> rebuild is all that may be required.
I would hope that such policy changes be very few, once
stabilized, and any minor changes would be subsumed in
> And also it gives the maintainer more chance that any problems can
> simply be reassigned to someone else.
I prefer to actually maintain my packages, not seek excuses to
reassign bug reports to other people. YMMV.
But was he mature enough last night at the lesbian masquerade?
Manoj Srivastava <firstname.lastname@example.org> <http://www.debian.org/%7Esrivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C