Re: RFS: quickrdp
On Sunday 22 January 2012 17:08:48 Tobias Eliasson wrote:
> > There are multiple implementations of telnet in Debian. Does quickrdp
> > really need this particular one provided by the "telnet" binary
> > package? If not, then the recommendation/suggestion should be changed
> > to "telnet-client".
> Not really sure I understand. From what I could search, there is no
> package called "telnet-client". To me it seems that the package "telnet"
> is actually the proper 'telnet-client' package.
'telnet-client' is a virtual package (as in Policy#3.6) provided by several
real packages, which share more or less the same functionality, so other
packages requiring such functionality can simply depend on the virtual package
without having to specify any particular real package(s) from the list. You
can try 'apt-get install telnet-client' to see the list of real packages. Of
course, if you really have good reasons to depend on a particular real
package, then you do so.
> >> Same goes for perl-base, but that's just for perl script support in
> >> QuickRDP. I guess Suggests will work here aswell.
> > Do I understand correctly that this feature allows users to run their
> > own Perl scripts? If this is the case, it should be probably "perl",
> > not "perl-base".
> Yes, users running their own perl scripts with arguments from the
> specific connections. Alright, switching to perl. Reason i chose
> perl-base was due to the description saying "minimal Perl system".
> >> I don't understand why Lintian complains on
> >> helper-template-in-copyright. I can't see that it's actually a
> >> template anymore. Sure I used dh_make to create the template, but
> >> I've changed all parts I should as far as I understand... (obviously
> >> not though).
> > It doesn't like "Upstream Author(s)". Just remove the "(s)".
> Alright, thanks.
> >> And why out-of-date-standards-version is 3.8.4 instead of 3.9.2 I
> >> have no idea.
> > "Standards-Version: 3.8.4" is in debian/control, isn't it?
> Yes, it is. What I meant to ask would rather be; is it because I'm
> running stable version of Debian that dh_make generates 3.8.4 instead of
> 3.9.2? Due to the explanation above that packaging focuses on unstable
> and testing I guess switching to Squeeze on this machine would be the
> best option for me.
Well you should prepare, build and test you package on a system ('suite' in
ftpmaster terms) you intend to upload to, that is, the one your declare in
your debian/changelog. Maintaining 'unstable' instance on your 'stable' system
should be relatively easy, by using:
* chroots - via cowbuilder, schroot (to name a few) to install, upgrade,
"login" to your chrooted system. This is as fast as your main system is, but
running X inside a chroot is tricky;
* virtual machines - this could be significantly slower, but more realistic
environment. For instance, you can pick a ready-to-go qemu image from:
http://people.debian.org/~aurel32/qemu/ and upgrade appropriately.
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>