(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