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

Re: RFS: etoken-pro-support



-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1

Andreas Barth schreef:
> * Andreas Barth (aba@not.so.argh.org) [070613 11:27]:
>> Otherwise, it looks much better than the initial version - I'll give you
>> some more comments this evening (or otherwise soon).
> 
> Some more in-detail comments now:
> - mkproxy seems to be a bit too generic name for me - how about
>   etoken-mkproxy?
OK; (good point, considering this is going to be in /usr/bin!)
> - why does the source package contain both mkproxy.1 and mkproxy.1.in?
A mistake. The former is autogenerated.
> - why does restart in etokend not delete /var/tmp/.etokend (but stop
>   does)? (same comment for etsrvd)
Although there appears to be no apparent need (these files are sockets)
removing them can't harm. I'll add that.
> - please remove the commands in dh_* you don't need.
OK.
> - I don't see the reason why you use automake (or even have any makefile
>   at all). You could probably install everything with just using
>   dh_install (at least debian-specific packages usually could).
Yeah, I can see that now. For me it was an exercise to start using
automake, but it doesn't really pay off. Nevertheless, I got it working
now so I'm not going to mess with it any more.

> 
> Please don't take my comments too bad - the first package is always the
> hardest :), and the package now looks to be in good shape for me (and is
> considerable better then the earlier version).

Thanks! This has been fun, I've been building RPMs for over a year,
which is very different. I can now say that I appreciate the approach
Debian takes towards packaging.

Dennis

- --
D.H. van Dok :: Software Engineer :: www.nikhef.nl :: www.vl-e.nl

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.7 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFGcF4XIITq5lEwLHcRAkE7AKCFN7S3UTIhtiAzwrKmXFbLUXZVfgCgqZgV
D31dbzby20WHuSugOKzfg5w=
=XNpu
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----



Reply to: