Re: RFS: lilo (updated package)
Niels Thykier <niels@thykier.net> wrote on 2011-01-22 02:56:
> > I am looking for a sponsor for the new version 1:23.1-1 of my package
> > "lilo".
> > Some notes:
> > - This package goes into unstable, ready for squeeze+1.
>
> Right, but until Squeeze is out I will upload to unstable without prior
> agreement with the release team.
Did you want to say "will not upload"? That is ok.
> lilo-23.1/debian/lilo.postinst:
> + # remove scripts of old lilo 22.8 if still exist
> + if test -f /etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-lilo; then
> + rm -f /etc/kernel/postinst.d/zz-lilo; fi
> + if test -f /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-lilo; then
> + rm -f /etc/kernel/postrm.d/zz-lilo; fi
> + if test -f /etc/initramfs/post-update.d/lilo; then
> + rm -f /etc/initramfs/post-update.d/lilo; fi
>
> You cannot remove them if they have been modified by the local system
> administrator. Policy Manual 10.7.3 (emphasis added by me):
Here I have the problem, that these scripts get the new name "zz-runlilo"
and "runlilo". If the old scripts stay there, they make the same think
twice.
Which would be the best solution? Should I warn the admin about this
problem while installing?
> debian/patches/02_lilo-version-${vendor}.patch:
> - Looks like lilo could use a "branding" macro or so for the build.
> - Any reason you replaced the "GNU/Linux" part with Debian in
> src/crt.S? Considering that Lilo is only supported on x86 and amd64
> for Linux, "Debian GNU/Linux" is still quite valid (or will lilo
> also work for the FreeBSD ports?).
I wanted to use the same rule for Debian and Ubuntu. But if I use a longer
string, then I think I should use "GNU/Linux Debian"? And for Ubuntu
I can use "GNU/Linux Ubuntu"?
> debian/patches/03_keytab-lilo.8-${vendor}.patch:
> - It looks like the doc is being installed in lilo-doc instead of
> lilo though.
> - Since Ubuntu is based on Debian you can merge this into one patch.
> You can choose to use "Debian-based" if you prefer that.
I will look.
> debian/patches/04_lilo.8-for-${vendor}.patch:
> - The "lilo vs lilo-doc" applies here as well.
I will look.
> doc/README:
> - Says distclean will remove "pre-built LaTex files"...
>
> But I cannot see any part of doc/Makefile actually delete any .fig
> files. A quick look at d/rules suggest it does not remove it either, so
> are these rebuilt from source?
No, the .fig files are the "source" for all pictures in the doc.
Some .tex files will be created from the the .fig files by upstream.
And these .tex files will be included in file tech.tex.
Thank you very much for you helpfully reply.
I will optimize my package and upload in the next days.
---
Have a nice day.
Joachim (Germany)
Reply to: