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

Re: Renaming files, patching, renaming files, unpatching, and 3.0 (quilt)


On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jasmine Hassan wrote:
> For instance, I'm packaging Compiz 0.8.8, for MATE desktop. This, at
> least initially, requires a lot of code substitutions, and quite a few
> file/dir renaming. (ex.: gnome -> mate, gconf -> mateconf, metacity ->
> marco, etc.) I use a home-brewed migration script to generate actions
> for that.

Compiz has not been forked but you have to patch it heavily because
Gnome/Gconf/Metacity have been forked? Is that right?

In that case, I truly believe that MATE should fork Compiz as well
and provide clean upstream sources (even if they are automatically
generated by a script that does the renames and all).

> huge, unnecessary patch. I might as well modify the upstream tarball
> and use that as the orig, which, of course, is not proper.

Why not?

Were you intending to integrate your work in Debian's official compiz
package? (Somehow I doubt that the maintainer would be interested to
clutter his packaging to accomodate MATE)

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
→ http://debian-handbook.info/get/

Reply to: