Hello! I'm adding again the bug report, please keep it cc:ed. On Thu, 08 Feb 2007 00:28:24 +0100, Evgeni Golov wrote: > On Wed, 07 Feb 2007 23:39:39 +0100 Luca Capello wrote: > >> ATM I don't really see any reason to create a separate package just >> for tf-tool, because libthinkfinger + tf-tool (binary and manpage) >> should generate a package around less than 50K in size. In case new >> tools will be added, we can split the package. >> >> Is a strong reason against this? > > Is tf-tool to be used by the user directly? If so, I would place it > in an own package. If it's only a binary used in scripts/whatever - > ship it in lib*. tf-tool requires root privileges because it needs to access the USB device. Moreover, practically speaking as a normal user you couldn't do anything more than acquire/verify your fingerprint, but stored in /tmp/test.bir. As root, however, you can automatically acquire a fingerprint for a login user (because it stores the fingerprint in /etc/pam_thinkfinger/). This is another reason I'd go for libthinkfinger only. > The point is, the user might want to read something about the tool he > is using. There is a manpage and /usr/share/doc/<package>/, the last > one would be ugly for libthinkfinger, because user would expect > packagename==binaryname. > Hope you understand what I mean ;) I understand, but packagename==binaryname is already not respected and it'll be the case with the package name proposed by Marcus, i.e. thinkfinger-tools. Moreover, the presence of tf-tool in libthinkfinger will be advised in the package description and if necessary in README.Debian, but I'm against that (take xbase-clients as an example...). > By the way, are there any prerelease packags for testing? This > UPEK-blob gets on my nerves ;) The package is still in preparation, Joshua and I are working in a co-maintenance. I'll privately drop you a mail as soon as the package is ready. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
pgplRaQsKiJ2I.pgp
Description: PGP signature