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

Re: RFS: downtimed

Dear Holger and all other participants,

onsdag den  9 februari 2011 klockan 16:22 skrev Holger Levsen detta:
> Hi Mats,
> On Dienstag, 8. Februar 2011, Mats Erik Andersson wrote:
> > > - you have a build-dep on debhelper (>= 7.0.50~), which is not in the
> > > archive. I assume this is intentional?!
> > The use of an override target using debhelper is functional
> > as of version 7.0.50~. This is clearly stated in the manual
> > page and this dependency has become a semi-habit, since I have
> > been able to observe the migration of debhelper this past year.
> I understand, but you can consider it as useless cruft which you'll have to 
> remove some day anyway. But keep it if you like! 8-)
> (Do you really expect backports to pure lenny? lenny-backports already has 
> debhelper 8.0.0~)

Good point. I have now chosen compatibility "8" and hence
a debhelper dependency "(>= 8)" in the control file.

> > > - did you send your three patches upstream?
> > See the stanza "Forwarded": yes. I am in contact with the
> > upstream author ever since my corrections to version 0.3,
> > when I coded the porting to OpenBSD and GNU/kFreeBSD.
> Ah, cool!

I inserted Applied-Upstream stanzas in the two patches that
have gone into Upstream's Launchpad repository.

> > > - the initscript could maybe go with a copyright header...
> > So many initscripts are working without such an attribution
> > that I ignored it. If you mean it should be there, then I will
> > insert a minimal punch line.
> Well, it's debatable if it contains enough significant bits (I believe it 
> does, but IANAL), but it doesnt hurt and the skeleton initscript does contain 
> a copyright.
> (I really don't care that much one way or the other. But this is mentors, 
> right? So I try to make you think ;-P

A small insert stating that I wrote the script, and some cosmetic
changes while I were at it.

More importantly, I did take notice of the fruitful discussion on
the disadvantages of disabling a service in the default-script.
Thus I removed that mechanism completely. The ability to use a
status call with the initscript and the message conveyed in #601455
are very convincing when read in one context.

> > I will do the small corrections, upload again, and let
> > the new packaging be known.
> Did you upload yet?

Now a renewed packaging is available.

Best regards,
  Mats E A

Reply to: