Hi, On Fri, 16 Nov 2012, Santiago Vila wrote: > > E: base-files: file-in-etc-not-marked-as-conffile etc/dpkg/origins/kali > > W: base-files: file-missing-in-md5sums etc/dpkg/origins/kali > > That would be really only one, because fixing the first one would > probably fix the other as well.
Yes. > The debian/* directory is clearly hand-made. If you are going to fork > a package, you should naturally take in account the way it's made, > regardless of what we might call "the norm". > > As the package does not use any helper package, it follows that > you have to update debian/conffiles by hand. I believe that base-files should be easy to fork because every derivative will have to do it. As such, I believe that you should update the debian packaging to assume that there can be multiple files in "origins/" and that you should generate the list dynamically. You can certainly achieve this without using dh_installdeb. That said with 95% of the packages using debhelper, it would be nice if a package like base-files that every derivative developer will have to look into could be similar to all the other packages that they might have encountered... > > I don't really understand why you haven't modernized the rules with > > debhelper... > > The list of conffiles in base-files does not change often enough. This is certainly not a reason to not use debhelper. Even packages which do not change much benefit from the standardized dh rules file. It makes them more future-proof (for instance you would not have to deal with the lack of "build-arch" and "build-indep" targets that lintian currently reports against base-files). > Maybe this is the first non-debhelper package you have had to fork in > a long time, and I'm sorry that you had to remember to modify > debian/conffiles for this time, It's not the first and it's not about me (because I'm perfectly proficient in packaging). > but I don't think it's fair to report > "package foo does not use debhelper" (which is what this report > essentially boils down to) as a bug, unless you are also willing to > report several hundred more bugs like that. Not all packages have to be forked by derivatives except this one. > May I close this bug? You do like I want, but I would rather see a fix for it. At the very least some "find" call to dynamically create DEBIAN/conffiles instead of hardcoding debian/conffiles. But updating the whole packaging to be more modern would be even better. :-) Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
