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

Re: RFS: bro

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 10:40:56AM +1300, Paul Wise wrote:
> 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.

My mistake :-)

> 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.

I had tried that, but it wasn't working.  I realize now that is because I
am using the older debhelper in lenny.  I will install the debhelper
backport or setup a squeeze VM and rewrite the rules file.

> 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:
> http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/secure-testing/data/embedded-code-copies

I don't know how I missed that python-subnettree already existed!

I will build separate source packages for:

 * capstats
 * trace-summary
 * python-broccoli

Does this sound like a good plan?

I will ask upstream about removing the extra copies.

> Remove all the .ex files, README.Debian.

Will do.

> libbroccoli3 will mostly be installed automatically, so it should have
> a much less detailed package description than the -dev package.

Will do.  I will go through a bunch of existing libfoo and libfoo-dev
packages for ideas.

> Installing /etc/broccoli.conf in libbroccoli3 isn't a good idea.
> Debian Policy 8.2 says this:
> http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-sharedlibs.html#s-sharedlibs-support-files
> "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.

I will make a new package called libbroccoli-common.
Alternatively, I don't believe that file is required for normal operation.
If not, could I just install it as a package example file?

> Please repost your RFC when the package is much closer to being ready
> for the archive.

I will.  Thanks for looking things over for me!

-- Justin Azoff
-- Security & Network Performance Analyst

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: