On Wed, Dec 28, 2011 at 12:01:04AM +0100, Gergely Nagy wrote: > Yup, this is the reason I dared raising the option in the first > place. (Though, even if this weren't the case, I'd be up for helping > maintain such a package, but thankfully, doing so would be an easy job.) > > So, if I understand it well, there is no opposition?
Thanks for pushing the discussion until here!
> Then we "only" need a package name, possibly finding other scripts apart
> from dh_apparmor (perhaps even poking the maintainers of various dh_*
> scripts if they'd consider merging into a single thing), and a
> maintainer (I'm willing to help with that, but the more the merrier,
> especially if there's someone more versed in dh-land than I am).
A first approximation is given by:
apt-file search -x '/usr/bin/dh_.*' | grep -v ^debhelper:
of course there is a catch in centralizing dh_* scripts in a single
package, in terms of ease of maintenance by the respective teams --- as
an author of one of those tools myself (dh_ocaml), I believe it would
benefit more from staying separate than from being merged in something
like "debhelper-extras".
But still it'd be useful to have such a package for dh_* scripts that
have no obvious location.
If Joey has no objections, I believe you should just go ahead creating
"debhelper-extras" (or whatever name pleases you), including dh_apparmor
in it, and then ask on -devel who is looking for a home for orphan dh_*
scripts.
Cheers.
--
Stefano Zacchiroli zack@{upsilon.cc,pps.jussieu.fr,debian.org} . o .
Maître de conférences ...... http://upsilon.cc/zack ...... . . o
Debian Project Leader ....... @zack on identi.ca ....... o o o
« the first rule of tautology club is the first rule of tautology club »
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
