Bug#450909: incorrect information in debian/copyright

2007-11-13 Thread Robert Edmonds 
Daniel Kahn Gillmor wrote:
 Thanks!  I welcome any other suggestions you have about the tool,
 From a packaging perspective or otherwise.

Some further comments on 0.4-1:

# FIXME: if there's no ip and no ifconfig, what do we do?
verify_interface() {
if [ -x /bin/ip ] ; then
/bin/ip link show $1 /dev/null
elif [ -x /sbin/ifconfig ] ; then
/sbin/ifconfig -s $1  /dev/null
else
error Don't know how to test interface.  Assuming '$1' is acceptable.
true
fi
}

I'd put a Recommends on net-tools (for /sbin/ifconfig).

Also, exchange the binary-indep and binary-arch targets in debian/rules.
This package doesn't build any arch-dependent packages, so binary-arch
should do nothing.

-- 
Robert Edmonds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#450909: incorrect information in debian/copyright

2007-11-13 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor 
On Tue 2007-11-13 21:12:45 -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote:

 I'd put a Recommends on net-tools (for /sbin/ifconfig).

That seems reasonable, though i'd hate to have a package i'm
responsible for encouraging the use of ifconfig instead of ip, given
that ifconfig and route have officially been superseded by iproute:

 http://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/reference/ch-gateway.en.html#s-net-low

I notice that the package Priority: headers for net-tools (important)
and iproute (optional) don't seem to reflect that situation, though.
Hrm.

I've added:

  Recommends: net-tools | iproute

let me know if that seems OK to you.

 Also, exchange the binary-indep and binary-arch targets in debian/rules.
 This package doesn't build any arch-dependent packages, so binary-arch
 should do nothing.

d'oh.  thanks for pointing that out.  i've cleaned up debian/rules
further.  There was no reason to have the install target broken out
that i could tell.  It was just cargo-culted over from more
binary-heavy packages.

Thanks again for your good suggestions.  Let me know if you have any
other concerns about 0.4-2.

Regards,

--dkg


pgpnSWbghosjs.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Bug#450909: incorrect information in debian/copyright

2007-11-12 Thread Robert Edmonds 
Hi, Daniel:

I'm looking at your vblade-persist package, and the debian/copyright file does
not appear to match the rest of the package (author, copyright, license):

This package was debianized by David Martínez Moreno [EMAIL PROTECTED]
on Mon, 25 Jul 2005 02:45:53 +0200.

It was downloaded from: http://sourceforge.net/projects/aoetools/

Copyright: Ed L. Cashin [EMAIL PROTECTED]

License:
[GPLv2]

If you fix this, I'll sponsor your package.

-- 
Robert Edmonds
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Bug#450909: incorrect information in debian/copyright

2007-11-12 Thread Daniel Kahn Gillmor 
On Mon 2007-11-12 16:58:28 -0500, Robert Edmonds wrote:

 I'm looking at your vblade-persist package, and the debian/copyright
 file does not appear to match the rest of the package (author,
 copyright, license):

How embarrassing!  I had modified the wrong debian/copyright file
before building the package :P  

Thanks for catching this.  A new version (0.2-1, with some minor
upstream changes as well as the fixed debian/copyright) is now
available at the same repo.

 If you fix this, I'll sponsor your package.

Thanks!  I welcome any other suggestions you have about the tool,
From a packaging perspective or otherwise.

Regards,

--dkg 


pgp65FOdt12lR.pgp
Description: PGP signature