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

Re: libreadline

On Sat, May 04, 2002 at 07:25:48PM +1000, Brian May wrote:
> 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 ;-)

It's a damn ugly hack and I doubt it will work perfectly. We should have
a much better solution for this problem.

> > 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).
Isn't it just replacing "readline" with "editline"? If it isn't, your
ugly hack probably won't work either.

> This is fine. As a maintainer of a complicated package, I am prepared to
> do this.

Any maintainer should be prepared to fix his package, else he should
orphan it.

> 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.

It's a licence violation, you could even force them to change it, but
I don't think that will be necessary. We should fix all the packages
instead of trying to provide ugly workarounds.

Jeroen Dekkers
Jabber supporter - http://www.jabber.org Jabber ID: jdekkers@jabber.org
Debian GNU supporter - http://www.debian.org http://www.gnu.org
IRC: jeroen@openprojects

Attachment: pgpSoKLB9V32J.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: