Re: RFC: ssl-cert2 design [Was: Re: Using the SSL snakeoil certificate]
pe, 2006-07-28 kello 00:03 +0100, James Westby kirjoitti: * Make it easier for package maintainers - One extra dh_ call and maybe one more file in debian/ How badly is this tied to debhelper? Any chance of designing it so that it doesn't require debhelper? -- One does not see anything until one sees its beauty. -- Oscar Wilde -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: ssl-cert2 design [Was: Re: Using the SSL snakeoil certificate]
On (28/07/06 10:03), Lars Wirzenius wrote: pe, 2006-07-28 kello 00:03 +0100, James Westby kirjoitti: * Make it easier for package maintainers - One extra dh_ call and maybe one more file in debian/ How badly is this tied to debhelper? Any chance of designing it so that it doesn't require debhelper? Why does this concern you? I thought debhelper was fairly standard use today. But, yes, like all of debhelper it's just a convenience wrapper. If your package is very simple then in the postinst add if [ $1 = configure ]; then make-ssl-cert2 package fi and in postinst if [ $1 = purge ]; then make-ssl-cert2 -r package || true fi The dh_ script merely does this for you after adding any extra arguments to make-ssl-cert that you have requested with your debian/package.certificate file. So, if you are merely concerned that it is /possible/ to do it without a dh_ call, then it certainly is. But I think it is a good idea to use it, as if the policy changes in this respect then a rebuild is all that may be required. And also it gives the maintainer more chance that any problems can simply be reassigned to someone else. James Westby [P.S. I have put the source in bzr format here http://jameswestby.net/bzr/ssl-cert2/ so it's browsable over the web now] -- James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jameswestby.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: ssl-cert2 design [Was: Re: Using the SSL snakeoil certificate]
pe, 2006-07-28 kello 10:53 +0100, James Westby kirjoitti: On (28/07/06 10:03), Lars Wirzenius wrote: pe, 2006-07-28 kello 00:03 +0100, James Westby kirjoitti: * Make it easier for package maintainers - One extra dh_ call and maybe one more file in debian/ How badly is this tied to debhelper? Any chance of designing it so that it doesn't require debhelper? Why does this concern you? I thought debhelper was fairly standard use today. I don't like it when people make using helper packages de facto required. And debhelper isn't standard (meaning that you can expect everyone to use it), merely very common. It is also very good, but its use must still remain optional. But, yes, like all of debhelper it's just a convenience wrapper. If your package is very simple then in the postinst add Good. If that is documented in the ssl-cert2 package, then all is well. -- The most difficult thing in programming is to be simple and straightforward. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: RFC: ssl-cert2 design [Was: Re: Using the SSL snakeoil certificate]
On (28/07/06 13:16), Lars Wirzenius wrote: pe, 2006-07-28 kello 10:53 +0100, James Westby kirjoitti: I don't like it when people make using helper packages de facto required. And debhelper isn't standard (meaning that you can expect everyone to use it), merely very common. It is also very good, but its use must still remain optional. That is fair enough. I understand the desire for choice. But, yes, like all of debhelper it's just a convenience wrapper. If your package is very simple then in the postinst add Good. If that is documented in the ssl-cert2 package, then all is well. http://jameswestby.net/bzr/ssl-cert2/README Probably requires updating to the new make-ssl-cert2 options. -- James Westby [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://jameswestby.net/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
