On Dienstag, 26. Juni 2007, Peter Samuelson wrote:
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
> > - * Fix some lintian warnings.
> > + * Fix some lintian warnings, add some overrides, and make the
> > + package binNMU safe.
>
> Well, the package was already binNMU safe. ${Source-Version} and
> ${binary:Version} actually mean the same thing. The old variable
> just has a misleading name, so the new name was introduced.
Hmm, it seems I misread http://wiki.debian.org/binNMU. There would
only have been a problem if an arch any package depended on an arch
all package, but apache2 has only the other direction.
> > --- trunk/apache2/mpms.lintian-overrides (original)
> > +++ trunk/apache2/mpms.lintian-overrides Mon Jun 25 21:54:39 2007
> > @@ -1,1 +1,4 @@
> > -binary-without-manpage apache2
> > +init.d-script-not-marked-as-conffile /etc/init.d/apache2
> > +init.d-script-not-included-in-package /etc/init.d/apache2
> > +postrm-does-not-call-updaterc.d-for-init.d-script
> > /etc/init.d/apache2 +binary-without-manpage usr/sbin/apache2
>
> Hmmm, something is wrong here. Why do the MPM packages refer to
> the init script at all? Why isn't the init handling completely
> contained within apache2.2-common?
The problem I see is that you can deinstall one mpm and install
another without touching apache2.2-common. So the mpm packages need
to call the init script. The alternative to have the init script in
every mpm package would probably be worse.
Cheers,
Stefan
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
