Bug#160529: ASK is RFPed
On Sun, Sep 28, 2003 at 04:25:03PM +0000, Robert Millan wrote:
> I'm not sure if you should remove them. Please paste the full lintian
> warning.
W: ask: prerm-does-not-remove-usr-doc-link
N:
N: The technical committee chose the symlink transition method to move
N: from FSSTND to FHS. This transition involves setting the link in the
N: postinst script and removing it in the prerm script. Here is an
N: example (/bin/sh):
N: if [ \( "$1" = "upgrade" -o "$1" = "remove" \) -a -L /usr/doc/pkg ]; then
N: rm -f /usr/doc/pkg
N: fi
N: The test for this is not perfect. If you are setting the link, please
N: send the line of code to us so we can improve the test.
N:
W: ask: postinst-does-not-set-usr-doc-link
N:
N: The technical committee chose the symlink transition method to move
N: from FSSTND to FHS. This transition involves setting the link in the
N: postinst script and removing it in the prerm script. Here is an
N: example (/bin/sh):
N: if [ "$1" = "configure" ]; then
N: if [ -d /usr/doc -a ! -e /usr/doc/pkg -a -d /usr/share/doc/pkg ]; then
N: ln -sf ../share/doc/pkg /usr/doc/pkg
N: fi
N: fi
N: The test for this is not perfect. If you are setting the link, please
N: send the line of code to us so we can improve the test.
N:
> > > > W: ask: unusual-interpreter ./usr/bin/ask.py #!python2.2
> > >
> > > That should be "#!/usr/bin/python2.2" (or better, 2.3).
> >
> > That's the thing: Python's documentation suggests the use of "env", to
> > make the physical location of python irrelevant. But the question is:
> > How do I tell lintian that "env" is OK?
>
> Sometimes Debian's policy disagrees with upstream's (in this case Python's
> upstream). In these cases your package should always follow Debian's policy
> rather than upstream's.
I fixed this one. The problem is that when I packaged ASK for the first time,
the "python" package meant "Python 2.1" and due to some bugs in 2.1, I had to
_require_ Python 2.2. But then comes the catch: If I put /usr/bin/python2.2
as the interpreter (back then, the interpreter location for Python 2.2),
and "Requires: Python2.2 (>=2.2.0)", lintian complained that this is an
"unusual interpreter" (even without the env). Then, I tried the interpreter
as "/usr/bin/python". Lintian would then complain that even though this was
a python script, python was not a requirement (because the package name was
python2.2, not python).
It seems OK now, as "python" refers to python2.2 and a symlink exists under
/usr/bin/python pointing to the correct version.
> On this situation, Debian policy follows the FHS standard (you should read that
> too, btw), which mandates the physical location of python should be
> "/usr/bin/". Since the location of phyton is standarised in Debian, the
> use of relative path may not be needed.
/me reads the FHS. Just when I got used to fsstnd... :)
> Again, the full lintian warning message seems relevant here.
I'll modify it once more to declare the "templates" as configuration
files. Some people modify the originals. Having them overwritten on upgrade
is a bad idea...
Regards,
Paga
> --
> Robert Millan
>
> "[..] but the delight and pride of Aule is in the deed of making, and in the
> thing made, and neither in possession nor in his own mastery; wherefore he
> gives and hoards not, and is free from care, passing ever on to some new work."
>
> -- J.R.R.T, Ainulindale (Silmarillion)
--
Marco Paganini | UNIX / Linux / Networking
paganini@paganini.net | PGP: http://www.paganini.net/pgp/
http://www.paganini.net | Magnus Frater te spectat...
Reply to: