Re: libreadline
On Sat, 2002-05-04 at 17:10, Thomas Bushnell, BSG wrote:
> Huh? How would creating another package help? Maybe I'm
> misunderstanding something.
Create a package, say libeditline-convert that contains the symlink and
conflicts with libreadline-dev.
That way you can install both libeditline-dev and libreadline-dev at the
same time if you want, but packages can still build-depend
libeditline-convert.
Sure, it is a hack, thats why I asked here first ;-)
> The Debian maintainer cannot simultaneously meet *all* goals in cases
> like this. The question is, which is the best one to let slide. It
> seems to me that having the maintainer make a trivial one-line change
> to the source is much better than any of the other alternatives.
Unfortunately it isn't always as simple as making a one line change. You
have to understand the way the configure script works, how it calls
these macros, try to get autoconf generate a new configure script (it
doesn't always work on upstream code).
This is fine. As a maintainer of a complicated package, I am prepared to
do this.
This big problem is when the new version of the upstream package is
released, and certain changes mean that the old patch will no longer
apply without redoing it all over again...
(just very small upstream changes can mess things up too).
Of course, in a perfect world, the Debian maintainer would just send the
patch upstream, and it would get integrated before the next release, but
in practice things aren't always this easy.
--
Brian May <bam@snoopy.apana.org.au>
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org
Reply to: