On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:55:18PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:09:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote: > > > > There are about 10 of these png files that shouldn't be there. Upstream > > > knows about this and will eventually get round to it. Can the package > > > still be accepted even with these errors? > > > > Can, but probably shouldn't. Move the images to where they're supposed to > > be (/usr/share) and modify the rest of the package to look for them there. > > If that's not practical, then symlink. > As long as upstram is ultimately planning on fixing this, I would > leave the images where they are *unless* they exist in a directory by > themselves (or with other data that should be shared). I'm just more > comfortable with that; otherwise a bad symlink could potentially cause > a crash (if the symlink is a whole directory though, you're almost > guaranteed to notice it before a user does). A Debian package conforms Debian policy. When Upstreams has different ideas where to place files, it is the Debian maintainer, a.k.a. the packager, that fills up the gap. And yes, than means extra work for him/her. A tool like dpatch does help with such differents. >"A bad symlink could potentially cause a crash" SURE! That is why it is called a bad symlink. So don't create bad symlinks, and don't use it as an argument for not conforming Debian packaging policy. > IANADD, > Justin Cheers Geert Stappers
Attachment:
pgpRihXQXefHQ.pgp
Description: PGP signature