On 2011-06-01 10:35, Russ Allbery wrote: > Niels Thykier <[email protected]> writes: > >> Secondly there is the handling of the "default" profile. Originally I >> planned for this to be a symlink because it was easier (code-wise), but >> does git handle symlinks sanely? If not, we lose the "git clone + set >> LINTIAN_ROOT + run" property we have now in master (even with the >> changes above). >> Would it be better for us to instead rely on dpkg-vendor to supply a >> default profile name (either in general or in the absence of the default >> symlink)? > > Git handles symlinks fairly well, but wouldn't that require Ubuntu to > fiddle with the symlink separately from the Debian package? I really like > the idea of having a single *.deb that could be installed on either Debian > or Ubuntu, and while we could play with things in postinst, dpkg-vendor > feels cleaner to me. >
dpkg-vendor usage is in the branch now. On a related note, it fixed a couple of regressions with profile usage (namely display-level was ignored). The debian profiles have also been committed, and are still auto-generated in the original way. I am leaning towards towards the manual update of the profile with a test to catch orphaned tags/checks. ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
