On 2011-06-01 10:35, Russ Allbery wrote: > Niels Thykier <ni...@thykier.net> writes: > >> Secondly there is the handling of the "default" profile. Originally I >> planned for this to be a symlink because it was easier (code-wise), but >> does git handle symlinks sanely? If not, we lose the "git clone + set >> LINTIAN_ROOT + run" property we have now in master (even with the >> changes above). >> Would it be better for us to instead rely on dpkg-vendor to supply a >> default profile name (either in general or in the absence of the default >> symlink)? > > Git handles symlinks fairly well, but wouldn't that require Ubuntu to > fiddle with the symlink separately from the Debian package?
I wonder why you did not object to this in the original specification! :P > I really like > the idea of having a single *.deb that could be installed on either Debian > or Ubuntu, and while we could play with things in postinst, dpkg-vendor > feels cleaner to me. > Saves me the mess of having to code said postinst as well. Guess I will go nag the dpkg people to make the Dpkg::Vendor stuff public API. XD ~Niels -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-lint-maint-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/4de64560.3010...@thykier.net
