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

Re: Lintian error

Raphael Geissert wrote:
[Please respect the CoC[0] and avoid sending me copies of the message]

Charliej wrote:
Raphael Geissert wrote:
Charliej wrote:
With that said this is a quote from my upstream:

 "Whee, is this something you could take care of at install, delete and
then create a symlink.  Or would this still violate this policy"

Would this be a viable solution?  (I told upstream I would ask)

I don't think this is a viable solution because the lintian error would
still remain.
You should symlink the file provided by the other package, if lintian
still complains it is a bug in lintian then.

I think one of the reasons he is hesitant is that the removal of
"prototype" from the .tar.gz  that he hosts would severely impact his M$
Windows users (he has a rather large M$ Windows community).  Actually I
could care less about M$ Windows users, but he does.

As I see it to comply with Policy 4.13 "prototype" will have to be
removed from upstreams .tar.gz..  Am I correct in this assumption?
No, he doesn't need to remove his copy of prototype, it is _you_ who
needs to prevent it from being installed in the package you build.

This I can do, but to clarify your above statement does that mean that I
remove it from the .orig.tar.gz or do I adjust the rules and or postinst
to insure that it does not get installed?

The latter :)

hmm I think I may have answered my own question.  Upstreams .tar.gz and
the .orig.tar.gz must have the same md5sum correct?  if so then that

s/must/should, there are situations where one must repackage the tarball,
but I don't believe this is the case.

means the rules and or postinst have to be modified.  Is my thinking
here correct?

Besides what I just clarified, yes.

This brings me to the next point what if upstream refuses to remove
"prototype" from the .tar.gz?


To everyone who answered this post Thank You very much for your assistance.


Reply to: