This looks like a very good design, although I will need to think about
it some more (and revisit how rpm handles triggers) to post anything
general about it. For now I'm limiting my comments to debhelper-related
aspects.
Ian Jackson wrote:
> 3. Update debhelper's dh_scrollkeeper not to edit maintainer
> scripts. dh_scrollkeeper should also issue a warning if it finds
> scrollkeeper (>= 3.8) in the Depends control file line.
Actually, lintian should issue such a warning. Debhelper is not intended
to find packaging problems.
> However, dh_scrollkeeper doesn't generate the scrollkeeper dependency
> in the control file, which makes it excessively hard to get the
> dependency up to date. (This was a mistake in the design of
> dh_scrollkeeper.) The bad consequences of these missing dependencies
> are less severe than the contortions which would be required to deal
> with the problem.
This is not a design problem in dh_scrollkeeper. It's not always
appropriate for a package that ships gnome documentation to depend on
scrollkeeper, and things will work without the dependency, with
scrollkeeper noticing the previously installed documentaton if/when it
is installed.
If the new design called for all packages that trigger scrollkeeper to
depend on the new version of scrollkeeper, dh_scrollkeeper could easily
be changed to add that dependency through misc:Depends. Some packages
that use dh_scrollkeeper will probably not have ${misc:Depends} in their
control file, since some developers remove it due to the ugly messages
that dpkg-gencontrol generates if it's empty. Such packages could be
automatically detected and fixed.
--
see shy jo
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature