Re: Errors Packaging Nebula
On 8 July 2021 6:01:16 am IST, Alex David <flu0r1ne@flu0r1ne.net> wrote:
>On 7/7/21 3:49 AM, Nilesh Patra wrote:
>
>>> I personally like option (1) since it would require the least work
>on
>>> behalf of the user. (And this is how I'm guessing the vast majority
>of
>>> users scaffold it.) But, it would still fail if they started the
>unit
>>> before configuring Nebula. Let me know what you think.
>>
>> Fair, option (1) looks like the most sensible thing to do. I agree
>
>Take a look at my last few commits and see let me know what you think!
>The postinst supplies some instructions that will allow users to create
>a bare-bones configuration. I install the examples into the proper
>directory and created a minimal configuration file.
You must take care of abort-upgrade/abort-remove/abort-deconfigure step as well. IMO, that message should be printed only during the configure step.
Just take a look at a few sample postinst files, and you'll get an idea
>>> I messaged him asking about import path substitution.
>>> I'll let you know what I learn.
>>
>> Cool!
>
>He said he will try to merge it today. I want to have nebula packaged
>so
>we can just pull the newest version of the source and substitute the
>dep.
\o/
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
Reply to: