Hi Dave, On Freitag, 1. Juni 2012, Dave Steele wrote: > > believe you should provide clean patches > cleaned
Thanks, so I've merged the next one... but then I looked at e6444734909a6074f9f768f0c32ffc56d3a2017e and found several points I disliked, want improved or plainly reject: - please keep the package in 1.0 format. 3.0 is more complicated and buys us nothing as we dont have any patches. - the README-server.txt (yay for writing it!) says that piuparts stores its logs in /var/lib/piuparts. Please add a sentence explaining that those logs are basically the result of piuparts running, thats why we store them in /var/lib. I also wonder whether we should store the master+slave logs in /var/log/piuparts/... - I don't like (/usr)/sbin/slave_run - IMO that should either end up in /usr/share/piuparts/master/ or rename it to piuparts_slave_run and put it in /usr/sbin/. I think I prefer the later. - piuparts-server.postinst: thats totally wrong, like this it would be executed on any upgrade, removal, purge, etc. You need to interpret $1 and act accordingly... see http://www.debian.org/doc/debian-policy/ch-maintainerscripts.html and postinst scripts of your choice :-) - why oh why do you reintroduce piuparts-server.preinst which you removed (albeit named preinst) in 89926a72e5675218abfbbd6dce50dba0292c43ad? I'm not impressed :/ - debian/rules: please explain: - dh_installman - $(MAKE) prefix=$(CURDIR)/debian/piuparts/usr etcdir=$(CURDIR)/debian/piuparts/etc all + $(MAKE) prefix=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp/usr etcdir=$(CURDIR)/debian/tmp/etc all + dh_install + dh_installman --sourcedir=debian/piuparts And then finally, I must say I'm disappointed by debian/control, just introducing a piuparts-server package. I thought we would get piuparts-master and a piuparts-slave packages instead 8-) cheers, Holger -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
