Re: RFS: hashalot (updated)
Hello,
Sorry about the delay in responding. Different time zones!
On Thu, 24 Jan 2008, Adam Borowski wrote:
> Actually, it seems that reverting to upstream autotooling doesn't break
> anything (except obviously being unfriendly to those who want to update
> autotoolage themselves). I would need to rename a file by hand in
> debian/rules, that's all.
>
> Should I remove those parts from the diff?
I think so. The package does not depend on anything substantial other
than the C library and compiler. Updating the autotool-age should not
be necessary.
I notice that you have shifted the man page from section 1 (used by
upstream) to section 8. Since "hashalot" is not just a "command to be
used by system administrators", I don't know why this has been done.
> Debian patches are small: -q for suppressing output, manpage and now the
> buffer overflow fix.
Rather than include the manpage you should patch the upstream
manpage. (Upstream seems to have included the manpage written by
Matthias Ulrich at some stage but the Debian packaging hasn't taken
this into account).
> In long-term, the package will most likely be absorbed into cryptsetup,
Now that there is "luks", there is some doubt about this!
> It's mostly there to avoid breaking people's setups.
That is a very good reason indeed.
Overall, it would be good if you simplified the Debian .diff.gz so
that it is clear that it consists of (a) packaging (b) bug fixes to
the upstream code. (Usually (b) is done by using "dpatch" or "quilt"
but I won't insist on this).
That way anyone wanting to utilise the code later would know exactly
what parts to use.
Regards,
Kapil.
--
Reply to: