Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria

Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not > warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters. The dh_* calls are there > for later upgrade of the package and retaining the order of the items is > not the same as this pages' suggestio

RFS : aircrack-ng --- Wireless WEP/WPA cracking utilities

Hello, I'm looking for a sponsor to upload the new version of aircrack-ng. I have already uploaded the 0.3 release but my sponsor has no time for me for now... Thanks :-) http://www.le-vert.net/divers/debian-package/aircrack-ng/aircrack-ng-0.4.4/ http://www.le-vert.net/divers/debian-package/airc

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria (Was: Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging)

Jari Aalto wrote: > > See down near the bottom > > near debian/rules. > > This is bad, such micromanagement for few commented lines should not > warrant rejection criteria by the ftp masters. Except the FAQ doesn't say that it's a rejection criteria,

[RFC] new package pfm (Postgres Forms)

Hello, I would welcome comments on my packaging of Postgres Forms (pfm), Tcl/Tk postgresql client which allows the easy implementation of cross-referenced forms to explore a database. Licence is GPL. Upstream source: http://gborg.postgresql.org/project/pfm/projdisplay.php I decided only to packa

i18l, gettext and (X)dialog

Hello, I hope I can ask here, because you are the i18n special1sts and from none of the other mailinglists I have gotten a suitable answer. OK, I have gotten a couple of tools and frontends which are using (X)dialog but unfortunatly they are only in english. OK, no problem, - I was thinking...

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria

Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Exactly. So in order to understand my own packages better I leave the > dh_* calls in, commented out so I can grep for them and see that they > are disabled. Well, I never felt this need. > Being a DD, I think I should be able to make that judgement for

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria

Hello, Florent Rougon schrieb: I'd say that if you're ready to sacrifice understanding of your package in order to spare 15 seconds, you should probably spend your time on something else than official Debian packages... Exactly. So in order to understand my own packages better I leave the dh

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria

Romain Beauxis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Would you argue that you are not skilled if you comment your dh_* calls? No, rather that if you're skilled, you don't need to comment them. > You could simply not want to loose time to find back the good order... I'd say that if you're ready to sacrif

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria

On Friday 05 May 2006 15:23, Florent Rougon wrote: > I disagree. If you aren't able to figure out a sane order for the dh_ > calls by yourself, you shouldn't be maintaining the package IMO (of > course, you could maintain a private package for yourself and your > friends, but we are talking here ab

Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 08:50:01AM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > I personally find dh_make-generated rules files hard to read in > > general, mostly because the meaning of all those commands keeps > > changing > eh? Um, if they didn't, why would we need compat levels? Also, it might be that I'm

Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging

Hello, Florent Rougon schrieb: The threshold where commented lines get unacceptable is IMHO way before they cause "terrible difficulties". You *could* read a newspaper article in which every other line is an ad written in red ink, but given the choice between that and a normal article, what wou

Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging

Jari Aalto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I disagree with comments about removing the lines from from > debian/rules (debhelper calls that are unused). This file is used by > the maintainer of the package and he knows best what is the most > effective way to organize his works. IME, it is not very

Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging

Panu Kalliokoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Well, I must add that I don't find the recommendation very smart either, > but probably there's somebody out there that has terrible difficulties > in not reading commented-out lines or something like that. I personally The threshold where commented

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria

Bart Martens <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Anyway, I don't see a problem with the readability of debian/rules with > the commented dh_ lines, and I agree with Jari Aalto that leaving the > commented dh_ lines can be useful, so I would vote "allow" if a > discussion would be held for this. I disagr

Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 01:21:36PM +0300, Panu Kalliokoski wrote: > On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:50:29PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > > >Some issues seem to come up time and again when somebody inspects RFS'd > > >packages. Some of these are not breaches of policy but simply bad > > >practices, lik

Re: debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria (Was: Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging)

On Fri, May 05, 2006 at 12:51:25PM +0300, Jari Aalto wrote: > Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > One can certainly argue both sides of this, but on this point in > > particular, ftp-masters actually made a ruling and asked people to remove > > the commented-out lines. > > > > See

Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging

On Thu, May 04, 2006 at 04:50:29PM +0200, Simon Richter wrote: > >Some issues seem to come up time and again when somebody inspects RFS'd > >packages. Some of these are not breaches of policy but simply bad > >practices, like leaving quoted dh_* commands in debian/rules. > I do that all the time.

Re: RFC: Yorick (scientific interpreted language) & plug-ins

Sorry for the personal answer Thijs, this was meant to go to the list. __ Hello Thijs, Thanks for your answer. Le jeudi 04 mai 2006 à 17:25 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : [...] > > * package granularity: I have currently 7 add-on packages (one more > > coming soon), each one

Re: RFC: Yorick (scientific interpreted language) & plug-ins

Sorry for the personal answer Thijs, this was meant to go to the list. __ Hello Thijs, Thanks for your answer. Le jeudi 04 mai 2006 à 17:25 +0200, Thijs Kinkhorst a écrit : [...] > > * package granularity: I have currently 7 add-on packages (one more > > coming soon), each one

debian/rules::dh_* comments as rejection criteria (Was: Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging)

Russ Allbery <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Simon Richter <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > >> I do that all the time. It is much easier to see that a program is not >> being run if it is explicitly commented out rather than just "not >> there", as Makefiles tend to be executed in interesting nonlinear

Re: A list of common gotchas in Debian packaging

Panu Kalliokoski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > Some issues seem to come up time and again when somebody inspects RFS'd > packages. Some of these are not breaches of policy but simply bad > practices, like leaving quoted dh_* commands in debian/rules. Some are > breaches of policy but common enou