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

Re: [PATCH] Nuke a few easily Lintian warnings



On Tue, 2010-08-17 at 12:23 -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 17, 2010 at 01:04:51PM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > > empty-binary-package
> 
> > >         Resolved by adding the word virtual to the relevant package
> > >         descriptions.
> 
> > I prefer 'metapackage'.  And I think that should go in the short
> > description (as in the packages generated by linux-latest-2.6).
> 
> Sensible, since 'metapackage' is the correct word for it. :-)

Right, yes.  I had a nagging feeling but didn't quite remember that
virtual packages are something entirely different.

> > > After this patch it looks from
> > > http://lintian.debian.org/maintainer/debian-kernel@lists.debian.org.html
> > > like the remaining Lintian warnings would be (I only considered the
> > > linux-2.6 source package):
> 
> > > linux-base - no-debconf-config
> > >         (should be linux-base.config not linux-base.postinst?)
> 
> > We cannot make this a config script because it requires external tools
> > just to work out whether it should ask any questions, and a config
> > script may be run before the package dependencies are satisfied.  This
> > warning should be overridden.
> 
> Which tools are these?

Either vol_id (old udev) or blkid (new util-linux), and libuuid-perl.

Actually the situation isn't quite as extreme as I remembered.  We can
decide whether wer need to ask any questions, and ask the first
question, without the package dependencies.  The second question has
substitutions which require information gathered by these tools.

> It's certainly possible to write a .config script
> that prompts for debconf questions opportunistically, and the .config script
> will always be run again at postinst time to ask any questions that it
> didn't know to ask during apt pre-configuration.  This generally gives a
> (slighty) better user experience overall, since users who already have the
> requisite external tools installed then get the debconf prompts in a batch
> up front.
[...]

I don't really like the idea of putting dependency checking in a
maintainer script which dpkg is supposed to for me.

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: