-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 6
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
debian packaging #10
Comments
Works as a config file sanity tester now. #10
Sounds good, done. |
What about the man pages? I think I could also write them in markdown, then convert them roff and eventually send a pull request here. They are looking quite okay, I think. You can see one created that way in action in Whonix. Example:
|
What do you think about a combined manpage (i.e.
Either way would be fine, I'd check in both your source and the generated output anyway. Like it's often done for
Yeah, even the generated roff code doesn't look terrible. I like it! |
I don't know if a combined man page would be acceptable by Debian policy or otherwise. I will ask. Debian request for packaging feature request:
Perhaps for getting this into official Debian, I would have to become upstream. I'd be maintaining a Debian friendly fork of corridor. This is because for getting this packages, I patched the makefile and added an additional dependency, genmkfile. Let's see what pkg-privacy-maintainers say and how supportive they are. |
I am not wiser about the combined manpage yet. Will ask in another place. What however would work would be having just one corridor binary in /usr/sbin/corridor which would just be a stub calling the others scripts from /usr/share/corridor/{forwarding-init,...}. Then a combined manpage would certainly be possible. Whether this is a good idea is another question. |
Fixed:
Asked: |
A combined manpage is permissible. |
rustybird#18 rustybird#10 Merge branch 'orig_makefile'
As of adrelanos@e9907c9:
|
Nice! Some things I've noticed:
|
Thanks to @rustybird for the report! rustybird#10 (comment)
Rusty Bird:
Done.
Usually yes.
Yes.
If is required for Debian packaging. Not strictly required, but then the Used in debian/rules:
If upstream does not provide an upstream changelog, this is a legitimate It could be automatically created during package build in theory, but This situation will likely improve when debian/source/format 3.0 (git) asked on debian-mentors mailing list:
Done. |
If you are wondering, why I am using genmkfile... genmkfile's
(Some of that is broken for corridor.) It somewhat standardizes packaging trivially packageable stuff. (I am not saying corridor is trivial! Just sh/bash/scripts that do not require compilation are intrinsically easy to package.) It helps me with questions such as:
|
Since @rustybird does not wish to merge distribution specific stuff of distributions he does not use (#2 (comment)), I am only opening this as an issue, not as a pull request.
Work in progress:
EDIT:
There is one issue that Debian will complain about.
That script if not executable does not belong there.
-x
mode and then exit with an "success" if that did not result in an error.Would you like to ship a
man
folder with manuals in ruby-ronn format in rustybird/corridor master?I guess I could contribute the original, basic man pages.
(The Debian packaging that I am using would convert them during package build to proper man pages compatible with gnu man. Much better than learning and writing the roff format.)
That would help Debian lintian (package checker) no longer complain about missing man pages. The man pages shipped at upstream rustybird/corridor seems more useful than in downstream adrelanos/corridor.
The text was updated successfully, but these errors were encountered: