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

Re: cipux: remaining linda + lintian warnings



On Wednesday 13 December 2006 00:58, Holger Levsen wrote:
> Hi,
>
>
> The following lintian warnings are left:
>
> W: cipux-cibot: zero-byte-file-in-doc-directory
> usr/share/doc/cipux-cibot/html/cipux_setup_ldap_objects.html
>
> I fail to see where this file comes from (and therefore, why it's empty.
> Christan, any pointers?

Well I looked for this too, but no clue for the moment.

When I execute the build target, this is not empty. It has the wrong content,
because the Make file tries to execute pod2man over the shell script. To make 
this more strange it has the content of a different man page: 
cipux_refine_homedir (old version from Martin Herweg)

This must be fixted first.

> W: cipux-cibot: script-not-executable ./etc/cipux/refine.d/disabled/kde3.sh
> W: cipux-cibot: script-not-executable
> ./etc/cipux/refine.d/disabled/mozilla.sh W: cipux-cibot:
> script-not-executable ./etc/cipux/refine.d/disabled/xchat.sh W:
> cipux-cibot: script-not-executable ./etc/cipux/refine.d/disabled/oo11.sh W:
> cipux-cibot:
> script-not-executable ./etc/cipux/refine.d/disabled/soffice7.sh
> W: cipux-cibot: script-not-executable ./etc/cipux/refine.d/enabled/void.sh
>
> Mentioned in another mail already...
yes
I will remove the bash line
>
> The following linda warnings are left:
>
>
> Check DocumentationCheck failed. Exception KeyError thrown
> ('/usr/share/man/man3/CipUX::CAT::Web.3pm.gz').
> Check FilesCheck failed. Exception KeyError thrown
> ('/usr/share/man/man3/CipUX').
> Check DocumentationCheck failed. Exception KeyError thrown
> ('/usr/share/man/man3/CipUX::Conversion.3pm.gz').
> Check FilesCheck failed. Exception KeyError thrown
> ('/usr/share/man/man3/CipUX').

> I have not yet checked those, but these are no linda warnings, but linda
> chokes over the files! Any clues anyone?

no I didn't even understand the error message

> W: cipux-cibot; File /usr/lib/cipux/sbin/cipux_setup contained in /usr/lib
> of Architecture: all package.
> W: cipux-profile; File /usr/lib/cipux/sbin/cipux_profile_fr contained
> in /usr/lib of Architecture: all package.
> W: cipux-rpc; File /usr/lib/cipux/bin/cipux_rpc contained in /usr/lib of
> Architecture: all package.
> W: cipux-samba; File /usr/lib/cipux/bot/cipux_bot_logon_ldap contained
> in /usr/lib of Architecture: all package.
>
> These files _are_ placed in the wrong directory. According to FHS, /usr/lib
> is for architecture dependent files, but those shell scripts are
> architecture independent. /usr/share/cipux/(s)bin is the proper place for
> them. Christian, I hope it's enough to move them there and to change the
> PATH/some pathes? Right? 
yes, I hope.

> Can you please do this? (This change is also 
> needed for any other distribution, which follows FHS)

ok. Thank you for the accurate Information! This will motivate me to move this 
around once more ;-)

> http://www.pathname.com/fhs/pub/fhs-2.3.html#USRSHAREARCHITECTUREINDEPENDEN
>TDATA
>
>
> Christian, I have not read debian/changelog real carefully, but from
> glimpsing over it, I have the impression you either repeat the upstream
> changelog there or use it as upstream changelog. Neither is good. Please
> use an own changelog, debian/changelog is intented for debian packaging
> changes mostly. It's ok to mention big changes, but normally you just say
> "new upstream version $version".

As a suggestion from a DD to make a debian native package the debian.log is 
the upstream log.

But If we want to make a non native package out of it, It might be a 
consideration of changing this and to find a new policy,

For example if you maintain a different changelog and rename the original 
changelog to something else than you have the necessary diff for making a non 
native package. If we move the original changelog and have both in svn then 
we can not get a diff. and therefore we can not  make a non native package.
(understandable isn't it?)

I am open to suggestion in that matter anyway.

Greetings
Christian



Reply to: