On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 11:13:00AM +0200, Geert Stappers wrote: > On Tue, Aug 31, 2004 at 09:55:18PM -0400, Justin Pryzby wrote: > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 10:09:40AM +1000, Matthew Palmer wrote: > > > On Wed, Sep 01, 2004 at 01:45:27AM +0200, Brian Sutherland wrote: > > > > > > There are about 10 of these png files that shouldn't be there. Upstream > > > > knows about this and will eventually get round to it. Can the package > > > > still be accepted even with these errors? > > > > > > Can, but probably shouldn't. Move the images to where they're supposed to > > > be (/usr/share) and modify the rest of the package to look for them > > > there. > > > If that's not practical, then symlink. > > As long as upstram is ultimately planning on fixing this, I would > > leave the images where they are *unless* they exist in a directory by > > themselves (or with other data that should be shared). I'm just more > > comfortable with that; otherwise a bad symlink could potentially cause > > a crash (if the symlink is a whole directory though, you're almost > > guaranteed to notice it before a user does). > > A Debian package conforms Debian policy. > When Upstreams has different ideas where to place files, > it is the Debian maintainer, a.k.a. the packager, that fills up the gap. > And yes, than means extra work for him/her. > A tool like dpatch does help with such differents. > > >"A bad symlink could potentially cause a crash" > SURE! That is why it is called a bad symlink. > So don't create bad symlinks, and don't use it as an argument > for not conforming Debian packaging policy. > > > IANADD, > > Justin > > Cheers > Geert Stappers
Fortunately creating symlinks is possible and I can conform to policy:) Thanks -- Brian Sutherland "There has got to be more to life than just being really, really, really, ridiculously good-looking." -- Derek Zoolander
