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

Re: RFS: dhcp-probe, another try to request with a lot of update



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

Hi,

I just upload on mentors.debian.net a new version of the package with
several update according to previous comments. You could find below my
answers/explanation for each comment.

The package can be found on mentors.debian.net:
- - URL: http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dhcp-probe
- - Source repository: deb-src http://mentors.debian.net/debian unstable
main contrib non-free
- - dget
http://mentors.debian.net/debian/pool/main/d/dhcp-probe/dhcp-probe_1.2.2-1.dsc


Michal Čihař a écrit :
> Hi
> 
> [...]
> 
> Quick look at the package:
> 
> - any reason why it is Architecture: i386?


In reason of the libraries dependency.
libnet1 package is for i386 architecture and dhcp_probe use it with
previous update of this library in order to provide specific functions
needed by dhcp_probe.

#apt-cache show libnet1
	Package: libnet1
	Priority: optional
	Section: libs
	Installed-Size: 176
	Maintainer: David Paleino <d.paleino@gmail.com>
	*Architecture: i386*
	Source: libnet
	Version: 1.1.2.1-4
	Depends: libc6 (>= 2.7-1)
	Filename: pool/main/libn/libnet/libnet1_1.1.2.1-4_i386.deb

May be i am wrong, but i think it is impossible to build a package on
architectures that are not supported by needed libraries ?

> 
> - debian/README.source content should be rather in debian/README.Debian
> 

The twice files are now removed from the package as you urge.


> - running something from /usr/share/doc/ in postinst doesn't look like
> a clean solution to me. Also if you want to run something there, I guess
> it should be only in configure phase and definitely not in any abort
> phases.

I update my debian/rules to include function previously located in the
/usr/share/doc/... file directly in.


> 
> - if you generate config file in postinst, you should let ucf handle it
> (or otherwise preserve user changes)

The configuration is dynamically generated according to host
hardware/system configuration (network interfaces) in a temporary file
(generated with mktemp) and ucf is used to handle the personal changes
of the administrator and my use of this tool has to be checked with a
great attention (my first time use). Rapidly is use it in postinst and
postrm files.


> 
> - prerm does nothing, so why is it included?
>

Yes you are right !
Sorry

> 
> - debian/rules:
> 
> - rm -f can not fail, so you can strip some useless test commands
> - "test ! -f Makefile || ./debian/rules config.status" - dependencies
> in makefile should ensure this

Yes sure for "rm -f" and its possible fail.

I thought it was a cleaner method to test the file exists before running
a command on, but may be i am wrong ?


> - why you manually create some directories and files? dh_install and
> dh_installdirs should do the job better and nicer. Anyway most of these
> dirs do not have to be created (examples) or look simply wrong to me
> (/etc/default/dhcp-probe)
> 


Now, dh_install* scripts are used to create these directories.
A file dhcp-probe.manpages had been created to replace command line
argument of dh_installman. It sounds better to my ears. I made the same
with dhcp-probe.examples and its associated command line in debian/rules
file.

The /etc/default/dhcp-probe directory is used to store all configuration
files needed (one for each interface on which dhcp-probe is used). I
thought that it was the best solution instead of spreading all
configuration files directly in /etc.


Thanks a lot for your comments.

Best regards

- --
Laurent Guignard, Registered as user #301590 with the Linux Counter
Site : http://www.famille-guignard.org
Blog : http://blog.famille-guignard.org
Projet : http://sicontact.sourceforge.net
GULL de Villefranche sur Saône : http://www.cagull.org
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.6 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org

iD8DBQFJLw3QjcKpXFc/7oYRAtnCAKC1q1abzOIbgL5ehhRV3Ez8vVLqTwCglrs2
94iZpJx270q/wgeVKzBtRqU=
=wJvB
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----


Reply to: