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

Re: Bug#484674: mldonkey: Packaging too complex

On 12-03-2009, Forest Bond <forest@alittletooquiet.net> wrote:
> --dMyqICaxQaaUjrCL
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
> Content-Disposition: inline
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> Hi,
> On Thu, Mar 12, 2009 at 11:06:33AM +0100, Sylvain Le Gall wrote:
>> On Thu, Jun 05, 2008 at 09:39:20AM -0400, Forest Bond wrote:
>> >  * Why does mldonkey-server need an init script?  Yes, it's a daemon,
>> >    but that is merely an implementation detail.  When it comes down to
>> >    it, mldonkey is a *p2p client*.  It should be run by normal users
>> >    when they want to connect to a p2p network.
>> >
>> Because this is a daemon and debian require an init-script to run it.
> Debian does not require an init script to run museekd.

You can launch mlnet as standard user. In this case, there is no need
for an init-script. You can also disable the daemon via

>> >  * Why the special make invocations?  The configure script suggests
>> >    running `make', but debian/rules runs `make utils opt' or some such
>> >    nonsense.  It fails when I try to build the version from intrepid on
>> >    my hardy box (after backporting and installing the dependencies),
>> >    even though just plain `make' runs perfectly.
>> Because it works on Debian unstable, the primary target of this package.
>> We do not support Ubuntu (at least not directly).=20
> It is not correct just because it works on one particular version of the
> distribution with one particular version of the upstream software.  The
> non-standard invocation makes it more difficult for someone else to maintai=
> n the package.  I ran into problems trying to merge a newer version of
> the upstre= am source.  Invoking make as upstream recommends works as
> expected.

Creating and maintaining package is just about making it works "on one
particular version of the distribution with one particular version of
the upstream software".  Whenever it is possible to make it works with
more is great, but not mandatory and up to maintainer. 

I insist: if you have great ideas about packaging just send a patch or

You should take into consideration also that there is other people who
like things the way they are set for now and will be very disappointed
when you change something. 

Sylvain Le Gall

Reply to: