Re: RFS: bro
On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 2:55 AM, Justin Azoff <JAzoff@uamail.albany.edu> wrote:
> I am looking for a sponsor for my package "bro".
> That said, I would like some feedback on how I am building the package now,
> specifically if the debian/rules and debian/control files look sane.
Usually one uses RFC instead of RFS in the subject when one is just
looking for comments.
Comments on the source package:
I'd strongly suggest using a rules.tiny style rules file and the
override_dh_* rules instead if you are going to use dh.
python-subnettree is already available in Debian, there is no need to
turn the embedded code copy into a package. Please ask upstream to
remove the embedded code copy. Same for capstats, trace-summary and
any other embedded code copies that I missed. It definitely isn't a
good idea to be adding to this file, which is already huge and scary
enough as is:
Remove all the .ex files, README.Debian.
libbroccoli3 will mostly be installed automatically, so it should have
a much less detailed package description than the -dev package.
Installing /etc/broccoli.conf in libbroccoli3 isn't a good idea.
Debian Policy 8.2 says this:
"If your package contains files whose names do not change with each
change in the library shared object version, you must not put them in
the shared library package. Otherwise, several versions of the shared
library cannot be installed at the same time without filename clashes,
making upgrades and transitions unnecessarily difficult."
I imagine /etc/broccoli.conf will not change when libbroccoli3 changes
to libbroccoli4. You should rename it to /etc/broccoli3.conf, install
it into a separate package or remove it entirely. Please co-ordinate
with upstream here.
Please repost your RFC when the package is much closer to being ready
for the archive.
> Please CC replies.
- RFS: bro
- From: Justin Azoff <JAzoff@uamail.albany.edu>