[Privoxy-devel] Privoxy packaging for Debian

[Roland Rosenfeld]

On Mo, 18 Jan 2021, Fabian Keil wrote:

> Thanks a lot for the detailed description.
> I've added some tags and committed it.

Great.  I just did some cleanup (removed the old cruft, added a
subsection for the snapshot build, fixed indent of the commands).
Hope it's okay, that I pushed it to the repository (usually I try to
reduce my changes to the debian directory).

> On the other hand if the debian files will not match the Privoxy
> version advertised in the dist tarball name they may cause
> confusion.
> 
> Something to think about some more ...

Maybe we should modify the version number for packages that are hosted
at sf.net/privoxy.org in a way, that clearly shows, that this is not
an official Debian package.

So while the debian.org package is versioned 3.0.30-1, we could use
3.0.30-1~pp-1 for the proivoxy.org version referring p.p hostname.
"~" is lower than everything else in Debian version numbering, so
3.0.30-1 from debian.org overwrites 3.0.30-1~pp-1, which should be
intended, since an official debian.org release is expected to be more
stable and is automatically updated on security issues.

Then we can use 3.0.30~git-snapshot-1 for all snapshot builds, where
3.0.30~git is lower than 3.0.30-1~pp-1. So a release always overwrites
the snapshot with the same version number.  Next snapshot after
release of 3.0.30-1~pp-1 will be 3.0.31~git-snapshot-1.

I should soon change the version number in debian/changelog in
preparation of the 3.0.30 release to 3.0.30-1~pp-1.

Hmmm, but this version number change of the pp releases minimally
modifies my release workflow, where I currently use the debian.org
version numbers, but I'll defer changing the documentation until I
once implemented the new workflow with 3.0.30. 

> > PS: Would it be possible to rename slackware/rc.privoxy.orig to
> >     slackware/rc.privoxy?  The Debian cleanup mechanisms always delete
> >     or complain about the file, since .orig is usually some artefact
> >     of patching...
> 
> Would renaming it to slackware/rc.privoxy.original be sufficient
> to silence the complaints?

I hope so, but didn't test it myself.

> The GNUMakefile currently filters the file using
> slackware/rc.privoxy as destination file name so renaming the source
> file to the same name would probably result in an empty file.

I wasn't aware of this.  Wouldn't it be a better idea to rename it to
rc.privoxy.in like other files that were rebuild using ./configure?

BTW: What do you think about moving the provoxy man page from man
section 1 to 8, since this is a daemon?  At least man(1) on Linux
systems tells me, that this would be the correct section:

       The table below shows the section numbers of the manual
       followed by the types of pages they contain.

       1   Executable programs or shell commands
      [...]
       8   System administration commands (usually only for root)

So on Debian systems usually every daemon is installed to /sbin or
/usr/sbin and the man page is installed into man8.

If you like this idea,
https://www.privoxy.org/gitweb/?p=privoxy.git;a=blob;f=debian/patches/15_mansection8.patch
contains the referring patch, which I use in Debian for 18 years now.

Tschoeeee

        Roland
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <https://lists.privoxy.org/pipermail/privoxy-devel/attachments/20210119/df3586bb/attachment.bin>