(Sent from my old Princeton account since Gmail is being broken) Frank Lichtenheld wrote: > On Wed, May 28, 2008 at 11:06:21AM +0600, Alexander E. Patrakov wrote: >> Adeodato Simó wrote: >> >Regarding the libexpat0-compat package, note that it is only needed for >> >stuff that we *can't* rebuild, since stuff that we can will be rebuilt >> >anyway. >> >> As a quick-and-dirty solution for some non-free software, won't running a >> sed substitution ("libexpat.so.0" -> "libexpat.so.1") on the problematic >> binary help? > > AFAICT we do not have the permission to modify the binary. > > So someone would have to contact upstream either way. Could the sed be done in the postinst of the package? Then Debian would at least not be *distributing* a modified binary. Would that change the legality any? If that still isn't permissible, here's another thought: Since wink appears to most probably be the ONLY package in Debian that needs libexpat.so.0 (as I wrote in [1]), it might make some sense to just ship the compatibility symlink in the wink package, with an appropriate "Replaces: libexpat1 (<= [last version with compat symlink])" line. The wink package would also need to have an explicit Depends: libexpat1 (which it really ought to do anyway, even before any transition). [1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2008/05/msg00428.html best regards, -- Kevin B. McCarty <kmccarty@gmail.com> WWW: http://www.starplot.org/ WWW: http://people.debian.org/~kmccarty/ GPG: public key ID 4F83C751
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature