OoO En ce début d'après-midi ensoleillé du samedi 17 mai 2008, vers 15:53, Colin Turner <ct@piglets.com> disait: >> I don't really understand why you did split the package into two binary >> packages. Why not just put everything in uuwaf? Why would people only >> install uuwaf? If they want to configure database themselves, >> dbconfig-common will ask them about this. > The reason is that some other applications we have depend upon the > framework, but don't use the preferences system. For example, we have a > system that brokers exchanges between our systems and the university > infrastructure - via webservices, it has a very simple UI for testing > and debugging, but doesn't use the preferences system. Well, I understand the purpose, but from a Debian point of view, this package is useless and should be merged. I understand that this will imply more work for your internal work since you will have to continue to maintain privately separate packages. Maybe someone else may give another point of view on this problem, so you may want to wait a bit if you want to keep this package. >> Note that configuring old Apache v1 may be considered unwelcome since >> Debian is not shipping Apache v1 any more. You may want to read this for >> the rationale: >> http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=434050 > Ironically, my original packaging didn't support it and it was suggested > by a friendly DD that I add it. I'm more than happy to remove it in > fact, since my userbase is likely to be mainly fresh installs in any > case. As I said, I am not convinced by the above argumentation. Therefore, it is all up to you to decide on this issue. >> Since you can break the webserver configuration by using Alias directive >> in Apache configuration, you should leave it commented. If the user >> wants to respect your alias, he will uncomment it. > That's a tricky one. I am fighting in a background where almost everyone > wanting to install my app asks about doing it on Windows. I've explained > that will be harder, and I recommend Debian as the "easy" solution. I've > been gratified that several folks have installed Debian from scratch, > and my unofficial packages with either no, or very little help. > Problem is, some of these folks will seriously find dealing with these > kinds of text files in an editor to be non-trivial, so it will reduce > the people who will even bother. Opinions? Again, I will not fight against this. Most packages keep aliases commented in the default installation but I don't see this as a strong requirement. It is unlikely that you break anything by shadowing but just note that common practice says that Alias should be commented out. For example: http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=476162 >> You have a bogus postinst/postrm. It is better to remove them. > I do? Both scripts seem to do important stuff to me, no? debian/postinst and debian/postrm? -- BOFH excuse #26: first Saturday after first full moon in Winter
Attachment:
pgpycSkbrksLv.pgp
Description: PGP signature