Re: [review] ledger-udev
Hi Lukas,
> This e-mail regards the packaging of the ledger udev rules at
> https://salsa.debian.org/pkg-security-team/ledger-udev
>
> I'm adding debian-security-tools@lists.debian.org to CC since I don't
> think I can help any more and I guess Stéphane will need a sponsor
> soon :) .
>
>
> Hi Stéphane,
>
> On Thu, 1 Mar 2018 14:06:13 +0100
> Stéphane Neveu <stefneveu@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I see no more warning running lintian -i --pedantic, I also added the
>> file ledger-udev.metadata.xml for appstream/modalias
>
> Great!
>
>> Do I still need to keep this upstream/latest branch ? I'm asking as
>> the package is native now.
>
> No, for a native package that branch makes no sense and should be
> removed.
>
> Package looks fine now to me from a technical perspective. Raphaël has
> already updated the Maintainer and Vcs-* control fields :) . Note
> that I have never worked on a native package myself, so I might have
> missed something.
>
Thank you Raphaël !
>
> A few more things I noticed / I'm unsure about:
>
> * The bottom part of the BSD-2-clause license you're using doesn't seem
> to fit too well: "THIS SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED BY THE REGENTS AND
> CONTRIBUTORS …". It's just you I guess, no regents.
>
You're right, I've updated the license to MIT
> * I would drop the word "simply" from the description (both in your
> man-page and the xml file). Whether or not adding the udev rules is
> simple or not is irrelevant for the users :) .
>
Sure, done :)
> * postinst: I'm wondering if the `udevadm` commands are really
> necessary. My feeling is that since the udev file is installed by
> dh_installudev and debhelper doesn't insert those rules, they might
> not be required. Maybe someone here has advise (but be sure to check
> before dropping the commands; this is really just a feeling).
>
I can remember I've already made a try without these udevadm commands
previously and it was not working as expected, but maybe I had missed
something...
Many thanks again Lukas,
Best regards,
Stéphane.
Reply to: