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 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.
>
dpkg-vendor usage is in the branch now. On a related note, it fixed a
couple of regressions with profile usage (namely display-level was ignored).
The debian profiles have also been committed, and are still
auto-generated in the original way. I am leaning towards towards the
manual update of the profile with a test to catch orphaned tags/checks.
~Niels
Reply to: