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

Re: Bug#567770: e16 RC bugs

On 11 October 2010 19:16, Laurence J. Lane <ljlane@debian.org> wrote:
> On Mon, Oct 11, 2010 at 6:12 AM, Alexander Reichle-Schmehl
> <tolimar@debian.org> wrote:
>> PS: My understanding was, that you would prefer to add /etc/e16 to the
>> searchpath for config files of e16 itself; as you can see I haven't
>> implemented that, but tried to fix "my" symlinks.  I thought that would
>> be the prefered way to do that, as a) it is less intrusive than changing
>> upstream stuff and b) you can always add the searchpath thing yourself;
>> (re)moving the configfiles from /etc/e16 will in that case just lead to
>> modified files being left there.
> I don't recall ever discussing the package or NMU with you. Your changes
> to the package clearly do not represent my interests.

Hey all,

I'm more than happy to leave it to Alexander to fix this up.

Comments on the NMU diff now proposed for 567770: I would probably
have added the links to debian/e16-data.links... I realise there's a
comment explaining that dh has already processed it, but I don't buy
it.  Not sure about all the 'mv' commands, either - autoreconf is
already getting called, and I would personally patch
config/Makefile.am.  Also, is there any chance a loop could make the
maintainer scripts shorter?

(The above is all a matter of style, however, and I'd prefer a working
package to a removed one.)

I might be missing something, but if the user upgraded to 1.0.0-3.1
from a previous version, would /usr/share/e16/config not be an empty
directory? So won't the rm -f in the preinst fail?  I had vague plans
to test this.

Take this all with a pinch of salt; it's ridiculous o'clock over here. :)


Tim Retout <diocles@debian.org>

Reply to: