Re: RFC: declaritive diversions
On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 06:40:37PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote:
> Ian and I have chatted a few times about diversions in packages. It
> seems like it would be easier to look for packages that should divert
> (and don't), or do (and perhaps shouldn't :)) if the diversions were
> declared in the package rather than being done by turing complete
> code :).
> This is a long-promised email to kick start discussion about this.
> I don't have a proposed syntax at this point, but I was thinking a
> control file in the source such as debian/PACKAGENAME.diversions would
> be a good starting point - if thats able to record everything thats
> needed, even if the binaries stay as they are (doing diversions in the
> maintainer scripts) for now for compatibility this would improve things.
I don't have much to contribute to a discussion (other than to say that the
idea seems reasonable), but I would like to register my interest in being a
pair of eyeballs for whatever spec you come up with for this. Currently,
maintainers that use diversions tend to go through a lot of false starts in
trying to get the ordering right, particularly when a diversion is dropped
from a package, so it would be great to see dpkg make this easier.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: