Re: Status on Vendor Profile
On 2011-06-01 10:35, Russ Allbery wrote:
> Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> writes:
>
>> Secondly there is the handling of the "default" profile. Originally I
>> planned for this to be a symlink because it was easier (code-wise), but
>> does git handle symlinks sanely? If not, we lose the "git clone + set
>> LINTIAN_ROOT + run" property we have now in master (even with the
>> changes above).
>> Would it be better for us to instead rely on dpkg-vendor to supply a
>> default profile name (either in general or in the absence of the default
>> symlink)?
>
> Git handles symlinks fairly well, but wouldn't that require Ubuntu to
> fiddle with the symlink separately from the Debian package?
I wonder why you did not object to this in the original specification! :P
> I really like
> the idea of having a single *.deb that could be installed on either Debian
> or Ubuntu, and while we could play with things in postinst, dpkg-vendor
> feels cleaner to me.
>
Saves me the mess of having to code said postinst as well. Guess I will
go nag the dpkg people to make the Dpkg::Vendor stuff public API. XD
~Niels
Reply to: