[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:
> Exactly, and gnome 2.x is no longer maintained, nor is Compiz 0.8.8,
> last in release 0.8.x from April 2011

So you have no other solution than to take over upstream maintenance.

> > 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).
> That's what I'm doing. Wolfgang Ulrich has also done similar, for
> redhat/fedora http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=276286

You should really collaborate on upstream maintenance and differ only in
the packaging.

> >> 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?
> In case someone decides to take over maintaining the package in
> unstable (and that it returns to testing), will collide, and
> apt-pinning is a pain for LMDE devs/maintainers.

You certainly should not take over the compiz package. You should
introduce "compiz-mate" that builds entirely new binary packages.

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

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

Reply to: