Re: [MoM] ProbABEL packaging
Hi Lennart,
On Wed, Dec 11, 2013 at 10:16:31AM +0100, L.C. Karssen wrote:
> I'll stick with plain rm, because, as you pointed out, I'd like to know
> something is broken if the file is removed/renamed upstream.
Fine.
> > ...
> > override_dh_installchangelogs:
> > dh_installchangelogs ChangeLog
> >
> > since this makes clear we are dealing with a changelog here. I do not
> > insist on the picky solution - just mentioning it for the sake of
> > mentoring.
>
> I like what you call the picky solution. To me it seems the
> cleanest/clearest solution.
:-)
> > I guess you will now work down the list of remaining lintian issues.
> > Feel free to ask for further advise if needed.
>
> Yup, that's what I plan to do. These are the warning that remain:
> 1) W: probabel: new-package-should-close-itp-bug
> This one we/you fix when the package is ready for submission, right?
Yes. You need to
reportbug --no-query-bts wnpp
and close the resulting bug in d/changelog.
> 2) 2x W: probabel: script-with-language-extension
> This is something we discuss upstream. One of them can be fixed
> relatively easily, I think. The other one may interfere too much with
> what users currently expect/existing workflows. My feeling is that
> removing the extension will require a major version jump and good
> communication with the users/their sysadmins.
Since you have said you would read about this issue the conversation I
linked to when this came up the first time I think you have a well
informed opinion about the different point of views in the team. So I
suggest to rename the easy one and if you think it is better to stay
with the one that users will expect this way, I will accept if you leave
it as is. I do not think that creating an override is correct because
it simply would hide the problem - just lets go with the warning where
lintian is right and please use your contact to upstream (and users) to
work into the direction that several experienced people are considering
the right way to go.
BTW, I really like this kind of MoM discussions because we were able to
find a fine grained solution for specific files since your specific
knowledge is introduced to know where renaming is fine and where it is
probably not.
> 3) 2x W: probabel: binary-without-manpage
> This I can fix quite easily. I see two solutions:
> a) fix this in the Debian package ("Here")
> b) fix this upstream in the imminent v0.4.2 release
>
> To me option b) sounds the easiest, but option a) may be more
> illustrative in light of our MoM. What do you think?
The man page should just be written at some point in time. I think the
best idea is to write it now for Debian, send it as patch to upstream
and use the (then accepted) upstream manpage once the next version is
released.
> > I'm quite happy about the progress you are taking
>
> Thanks! And my compliments to you for the good and quick advice along
> the way.
:-)
Kind regards
Andreas.
--
http://fam-tille.de
Reply to: