Re: RFC: declaritive diversions
Robert Collins <email@example.com> writes:
> 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.
Did you see my earlier mail about the very same thing?