Hi again,
On 03/20/2016 09:08 AM, Didier Kryn <kryn@???> wrote:
> Le 19/03/2016 22:00, Daniel Reurich a écrit :
>> >
>> >On 20 March 2016 9:07:48 AM NZDT, Didier Kryn<kryn@???> wrote:
>>> >>Le 19/03/2016 21:01, Daniel Reurich a écrit :
>>>> >>>On 20/03/16 08:56, Didier Kryn wrote:
>>>>>> >>>>>Le 19/03/2016 19:05, aitor_czr a écrit :
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>Hi all,
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>By default, PSTAT (a dependency of VDEV) is installed in
>>> >>"/usr/local",
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>just as VDEV.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>As Daniel Raurich explained in another thread:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>[...] the "/usr/local" directory is for non-packaged local stuff
>>> >>[...]
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>So, should i change this configuration for those packages, or
>>> >>should i
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>skip debhelper's "dh_usrlocal" script adding:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>binary:
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> dh binary --before dh_usrlocal
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> dh binary --after dh_usrlocal
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>to debian/rules?
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>Thanks in advance,
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>> Aitor.
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> Jude organized the package like this for people to test it on
>>>>>> >>>>>running systems without interfering with the existing hotplugger.
>>> >>Vdev
>>>>>> >>>>>would create device files and other descriptive files under
>>>>>> >>>>>/usr/local/dev. But, of course it was not meant to remain like this
>>> >>if
>>>>>> >>>>>Vdev was to be the hotplugger in charge.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>>>> >>>>> If it's worth, you might leave it like this until you can get
>>> >>it to
>>>>>> >>>>>work and then switch to a normal file hierarchy when ready.
>>>>>> >>>>>
>>>> >>>I strongly disagree. If it's to be packaged, it should be packaged
>>>> >>>properly in keeping with Debian policies (which Devuan has adopted)
>>> >>with
>>>> >>>regards to FHS and location of parts.
>>>> >>>
>>>> >>>Vdev being an essential system tool should be in the root hierarchy.
>>> >> I fully agree with you; therefore I don't understand in what you
>>> >>disagree:-)
>>> >>
>> >You were just suggesting that it would be ok to "leave it like this until you can get
>> >it to work and then switch to a normal file hierarchy when ready".
>> >
>> >I'm just stating that I disagree with your premise that creating a package that breaks policy is acceptable "until you can get it to work".
>> >
>> >If vdev doesn't work already then it's to early to be packaging it. However indications are that it does work and thus it should be properly packaged.
>> >
>> >As for testing it should minimally be able to be used successfully debootstrap a new system and also to replace udev on a running system without seriously breaking anything.
>> >
>> >Once it does that we should put it in experimental for wider testing.
>> >
> Daniel, my point was just practical, although it's obviously
> Aitor's buzyness.
>
> Jude organized his install process so as to put the files under
> /usr/local, so that testers could easily test it without interferring
> with the hotplugger in function. As such, the package does not need to
> exclude Udev. I tested Vdev with the normal file hierarchy, in a tiny
> OS Busybox-based, and I didn't read any report of anyone else having
> done so.
>
> Several months ago, when I stopped testing Vdev in this way, it was
> working fine. But the latest version isn't working properly and I don't
> know the reason. I cannot exclude that the reason is in handling the
> file hierarchy. Vdev manages a lot of files, much more than Udev. OTOH I
> didn't read any report of a successful test of this latest version under
> /usr/local.
>
> This is why I suggested to go step by step and not build blindly a
> final version of the package which would force the removal of Udev and
> replace it with something which doesn't work. But,
> again, this was just a friendly suggestion to Aitor, who probably
> doesn't need it. And this suggestion caused a useless discussion which
> is why I regret to have made it.
>
> Didier
Ok, being my first atempt, i will respect Jude Nelson's original
location in "/usr/local" and leave this point for later. Debian's policy
isn't a priority now. This also will make the job easier. So, for the
time being, i will skip dh_usrlocal with [*]:
binary:
dh binary --before dh_usrlocal
dh binary --after dh_usrlocal
After testing the packages, we will take up this discussion again, if it's agreeable to you.
Thanks to all of you,
Aitor.
[*] Rainer Weikusat (Dng Digest, Vol 11, Issue 86)
::
Re: [DNG] Packaging Vdev
