Hello Thomas! On Thu, Feb 19, 2004 at 08:42:11AM +0000, Thomas Viehmann wrote:
Florian Ernst (firstname.lastname@example.org) wrote:Description : useful collection of scripts for irssiHow does it feel, putting together one of the 24 useful packages? (SCNR, I know that you didn't make that up.)
Oh, I feel just great :o) I mean, hey, it's useful (or even convenient) for me so it certainly must be good for everyone else... But seriously, this has bugged me long enough, so I finally remove the 'useful' now ;) I'll just upload a new version...
Should I rather explain the dependencies for each single one of these 23 demanding scripts in the description, or keep it like that, or...?If they're mostly used interactively, how about gracefully failing with a note why (This program needs foo to run, on Debian, you find it in packages bar). That, in combination with Recommends etc., would IMHO be the most useful.
Hm, Recommends are definitely too strong for those additional packages. Only one or at most two of 222 scripts need this particular extension, so Suggests is IMHO already rather strong... So far these demanding scripts fail hard like |10:55:21 -!- Irssi: Error in script blowjob: |10:55:21 Can't locate Crypt/CBC.pm in @INC (@INC contains: |/home/fernst/.irssi/scripts /usr/share/irssi/scripts |/usr/lib/perl/5.8.2 /etc/perl /usr/local/lib/perl/5.8.2 |/usr/local/share/perl/5.8.2 /usr/lib/perl5 /usr/share/perl5 |/usr/share/perl/5.8.2 /usr/local/lib/site_perl .) at (eval 650) line 40. |10:55:21 BEGIN failed--compilation aborted at (eval 650) line 40. on a Sarge box, but I thought users may check the contained README.Debian then which I mentioned in the long description. Otherwise I'd have to patch all these scripts, but this will just make it _look_ nicer for the user. I don't think it will make installing the required package(s) easier. But I see your point...
2) Dependencies: All Recommends: and Suggests: are not versioned, and unfortunately I don't know whether they really need to be or not... (I don't mean policy-wise, but regarding this particular package.)Ideally, you'd verify some more prominent versions (i.e. those in woody, sarge) of the packages let your scripts work is intended. (I'm not claiming that that's necessary though.)
OK, I'm currently checking on Sarge. Checking on Woody won't be necessary, since this package will never make it to Woody. Or did I misunderstand you here? Cheers, Flo PS: Does anybody know why the changelog for version 10 of this package never made it to http://packages.qa.debian.org/irssi-scripts ?
Description: Digital signature