Hello,
On Fri, 04 Mar 2016, Santiago Vila wrote:
> I'm not sure what do you mean by quoting this lintian warning:
> > E: base-files: symlink-should-be-absolute etc/os-release
> > ../usr/lib/os-release
>
> If you mean "Had you been using debhelper, you would not have made
> this trivial mistake" (so to speak), then please see Bug#755394 and
> the changelog for version 7.5.
Arguably, this could also have been considered a dracut bug... at least
had you been using dh_link, you would have had to not use it and explain
why you handle the link outside debhelper.
override_dh_link:
dh_link
# Create this link as relative despite policy, see #755394
ln -sf ../usr/lib/os-release debian/base-files/etc/os-release
> May I ask, then, that you remove this symlink thing from the "list of
> things base-files does wrong because the package does not use debhelper"?
That's up to you to do it, by adding a lintian overrides. Or maybe you
don't want to add lintian overrides because they would end up on all
systems? In which case, it would be good to document that choice as
well... possibly in debian/README.source.
> If I switch to debhelper, would I have to fight it so that it does not
> "fix" things like this?
No, it just means that you can't use dh_link for this specific symlink.
> I know this was not the intent of your email, but you are actually
> giving me reasons not to switch to debhelper rather than reasons to switch.
>
> Anyway, let me think about base-files and debhelper this weekend.
Hopefully my mail convinced you that it makes your rules file more
readable by putting in light what is different in base-files compared to a
normal package...
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
Support Debian LTS: http://www.freexian.com/services/debian-lts.html
Learn to master Debian: http://debian-handbook.info/get/
