[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Policy on Releasing patched packages?



I'm about to release ppp-mschap package (ppp with a patch to support WinNT
(Yuck:)) crypto chap authentication). Just before uploding to non-us, A last
minute panic hitted that I'm not doing the "right thing" (tm).

Now ppp-mschap conflicts/replaces pppd. It install's perfectly replacing
ppp. However, the rxvt/rxvt-xpm packages use diversions to allow
both to be installed.

Also, I'm not sure how should I manage the source uploads. Should I
include the patch in diff.gz and edit the .dsc.gz to use the original
ppp source, or do it like I now do, rename ppp...orig.tar.gz to ppp-mschap...
and upload it to non-us. Or should I modify the Original ppp sources so
that ppp package creates both the normal ppp package and the ppp-mschap
package and send it to Lameter (He maintains PPP), andn tell him
to upload the source to nomus and leave all maintinng to Him??

Do we have a policy on Howto to handle patched applications?
This isn't only a issue for ppp, since I also use a patched version of
Lynx (with Gpm support).

Your puzzled Riku Voipio.


-- 
 __________________________________________________________________________
      Riku Voipio                     e-mail:                    ///\\\
    pohjolankatu 20 A 12         riku.voipio@iki.fi             ////\\\\
     50120 Mikkeli            finger voipio@sci.fi for pgp     /////\\\\\
 ==========================================================================


--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org . 
Trouble?  e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .


Reply to: