Re: Someone to 'proofread' a .deb please
On Friday 12 December 2008 01:16:00 Paul Gevers wrote:
> >> So how to complain about packages that don't want to change the
> >> policy? I filed a bug at upstream [1] but it was a wontfix.
> >
> > Why? What was the excuse? You'll need to persuade upstream that it is
> > not acceptable. How you do that is up to you - one of the main skills
> > of a maintainer is persuading upstream to fix things properly.
>
> By the way, the upstream respondent is the Debian maintainer, so I try
> to persuade a colleague maintainer (not "my" upstream). The excuse is
> that they keep the directory in sync with sid and that "other
> distributions" should just remove the debian directory.
In that case it wouldn't hurt to suggest addition of even more insanity to
their (lazarus's, right ?) top-level Makefile, like fiddling around with the
`debian' directory name ;-) Their `debbuild' rule could move a hypothetical
`upstream_debian/' (that what they would keep in their vcs and
their "upstream" tarball as they do now with debian/) to 'debian/', then call
dpkg-buildpackage as they do, and finally move it back to `upstream_debian'.
This would still let them automatically build debs for whatever unknown
reasons they have just to put them on SF, but would also free some room for
diff.gz to apply a real debian/ to their unpacked upstream tarball, not
containing debian/. Yes, that is ugly and I won't do that alone at home.
--
pub 4096R/0E4BD0AB 2003-03-18 <people.fccf.net/danchev/key pgp.mit.edu>
Reply to: