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

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

Removed Damyan from the loop, as this no longer concerns his article
on renaming files & quilt

Also check http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=648022

I believe unstable should move to 0.9.x, and let me fork 0.8.8 for
MATE. I have it running rock solid atm, completely integrated with
marco 1.4 (metacity's replacement) as the decorator, and even emerald
0.8.8 as an additional option for decorator.

Also, moved to dh compat 7 (was 5) and quilt 3.0. And I made all
patches dep3 (added all missing
Too many to list.

On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 9:04 AM, Jasmine Hassan <jasmine.aura@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Wed, Oct 10, 2012 at 8:49 AM, Raphael Hertzog <hertzog@debian.org> wrote:
>> Hi,
>> 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?
> Exactly, and gnome 2.x is no longer maintained, nor is Compiz 0.8.8,
> last in release 0.8.x from April 2011
> It was removed from testing, and unstable is still stuck at 0.8.4-1,
> way behind the latest in the series from ubuntu, (0.8.6-whatever), and
> its not longer being maintained in ubuntu either, in favor of 0.9.x
> which is moving in the direction of unity. so ... no 0.9.x will work
> for gnome 2.x / MATE
>> 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
> I synced all patches from latest applicable 0.8.6 in ubuntu that still
> apply to 0.8.8, and debian, and a couple from fedora. I believe my
> fork is superior to Wolfgang's, though I'm packaging for LMDE
> (LinuxMint Debian Edition) / Debian Testing (what LMDE is based on).
>>> 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.
>> 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)
> like i said. it fell out of testing (removed), and unstable hasn't
> been updated by maintainer since 25 Oct 2011
> Couple small NMU's, last being 29 May 2012, and even then it is still
> at 0.8.4-5.2
> Someone needs to take over, obviously?
> Cheers
>> Cheers,
>> --
>> Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer
>> Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook:
>> → http://debian-handbook.info/get/

Reply to: