On Tue, Jul 03, 2007 at 06:40:37PM +1000, Robert Collins wrote: > Ian and I have chatted a few times about diversions in packages. It > seems like it would be easier to look for packages that should divert > (and don't), or do (and perhaps shouldn't :)) if the diversions were > declared in the package rather than being done by turing complete > code :).
> This is a long-promised email to kick start discussion about this. > I don't have a proposed syntax at this point, but I was thinking a > control file in the source such as debian/PACKAGENAME.diversions would > be a good starting point - if thats able to record everything thats > needed, even if the binaries stay as they are (doing diversions in the > maintainer scripts) for now for compatibility this would improve things. I don't have much to contribute to a discussion (other than to say that the idea seems reasonable), but I would like to register my interest in being a pair of eyeballs for whatever spec you come up with for this. Currently, maintainers that use diversions tend to go through a lot of false starts in trying to get the ordering right, particularly when a diversion is dropped from a package, so it would be great to see dpkg make this easier. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
