On Fri, 2017-03-17 at 16:31:27 +0100, Markus Koschany wrote:
> Am 15.03.2017 um 22:05 schrieb Andreas Beckmann:
> > The "package" argument is not about the package that makes the changes,
> > but about the package owning the stuff being acted upon. Usually both
> > are the same and the "package" argument can be omitted.
> > I think the "package" argument is not used for symlink_to_dir, but
> > needed for dir_to_symlink ("Is all the stuff found in dir owned by
> > $package?"). Or for rm_conffile/mv_conffile cases where the conffile was
> > previously owned by a *different* package.
>
> I would expect that this kind of information should be part of
> dpkg-maintscript-helper's
> man page. At least I would like a clarification about the "I think the
> "package" argument
> is not used for symlink_to_dir" part.
The man page already mentions that the package argument is always
used, and if it is empty it will get inferred from the environment set
up by dpkg itself. The only thing that might be missing (or at least
might need to be made more explicit) is that the package is the one
owning the file, but from the context and from the prior-version
descrption it seems rather obvious to me. But I can add the "owns the
involved pathnames" or similar to the package argument description.
> It should be more obvious why the package argument is
> needed at all when you have to create one $PACKAGE.maintscript file per
> package anyway.
This is rather confused, and has nothing to do with how
dpkg-maintscript-helper operates, but rather how debhelper uses its
files and how it might or might not add the package arguments on its
own.
> Please also clarify that [package] does not imply that a single maintscript
> file will act on the binary[package].
I'm no sure what you mean here exactly, but this seems to me it's
something for debhelper to document if at all.
> I think an example how to use dpkg-maintscript-helper with debhelper's
> maintscript files would also be appreciated.
This would be a layer violation, I'm not planning on documenting how
upper layers are using dpkg in this way. Please get debhelper to
clarify any of this if it's not yet clear.
Thanks,
Guillem
