Re: Lintian warnings questions
On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote:
> 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
> Geert Stappers
Fortunately creating symlinks is possible and I can conform to policy:)
"There has got to be more to life than just being really,
really, really, ridiculously good-looking." -- Derek Zoolander