[Pkg-rrfw-general] Re: Unofficial Debian packages for RRFW 0.1.7 available

[Jurij Smakov]

Hi Marc,

Thanks for looking at the packages.

On Thu, 12 Aug 2004, Marc Haber wrote:
>
> I haven't actually tried them out yet, but you have a few minor
> lintian and linda issues. Some of your maintainer scrips are missing
> the debhelper token which might let the package end up with incomplete
> maintainer scripts, you need to have a versioned build dep on
> debhelper 4 since your debian/rules uses DH_COMPAT=4, and
> /usr/lib/rrfw/rrfw_action_snmptrap is installed to /usr/lib, but it
> should be in /usr/share as an architecture independent file.

Yes, I have missed some warnings/errors reported by linda. I have only
checked the packages with lintian before the upload and it failed to
report any problems. I'll introduce the versioned dep on debhelper and
correct the rrfw_action_snmptrap problem. As for the debhelper token
missing from the maintainer scripts, this is by design. I played with
it a bit and decided that I feel a bit uncomfortable with all these
automatic substitutions, so I have put all the needed stuff there by
hand (by looking at automatically generated code). I will fix all the
problems and make a new upload to alioth during the weekend.

> rrfw-common binary depends on libapache2-parseformdata-perl which
> doesn't seem to be in Debian at all. Where can that package be
> obtained, and is it really needed by rrfw-common instead of
> rrfw-apache2 (libapache_2_-parseformdata-perl)?

You are completely right, libapache2-parseformdata-perl is not in the
archive yet. I have filed the RFP for it, but since no-one has responded
for a while, I have packaged it myself. Its source/binary packages are
available from the same repository on alioth as the rrfw packages, or
at [0] and [1] (respectively), if you prefer just to wget it.

As for which package should declare the dependency on it, it is an open
question. Since rrfw-apache and rrfw-apache2 are pseudopackages, only
providing the corresponding configuration files and setting up stuff in
postinst, to me it seems more consistent for rrfw-common to pull in all
the needed dependencies, especially since Apache::ParseFormData module
is referenced by the files in it. If you would like to change it, I will
not have any strong objection.

Finally, a note about CVS: I have tried to sort out the mess I've created
while importing the RRFW 0.1.6 source into it. It turned out too
problematic, so I ended up removing the repository completely and
reimporting 0.1.7 from scratch. I hope that by now I know enough about CVS
that such drastic actions would not be necessary in the future :-). So if
you have an old working copy sitting around, please remove it and
re-checkout the source, so that it is in sync.

> Greetings
> Marc

[0] http://pkg-rrfw.alioth.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/source/
[1] http://pkg-rrfw.alioth.debian.org/debian/dists/unstable/main/binary-i386/

Thanks again and best regards,

Jurij Smakov                                        jurij@wooyd.org
Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/                   KeyID: C99E03CC