Ben Finney wrote:
"Paul Wise" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
On Wed, Jul 30, 2008 at 3:52 PM, Charliej <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I have contacted upstream about this error, and he states that he
would not want to depend on the prototype package in debian
because he has made changes to the version of prototype he is
currently using.
Please ask him to send his changes to the prototype upstream
developers so they can be included in the next prototype release.
Another option is for the person who wants the library to be different
to fork it, maintain that fork, and work with someone to get it into
Debian. This option is obviously more ongoing work, but may be
preferable if (as sometimes happens) the author of the library won't
accept the changes.
Once that is in Debian, your package can depend on it.
Same here.
The main point is that a library that is *not* the same 'prototype' as
upstream should either be merged with, or clearly (in name and in code
access) differentiated from, the upstream 'prototype' library. Which
is what you (Charliej) are already discussing with your upstream, so
thank you.
First let me apologize for a mistake in my first post. My upstream is
actually using what is in the debian repos now. I had accidentally
grabbed a later version to do my diff with. So actually there are no
differences between upstream prototype and what is in the package now.
With that said this is a quote from my upstream:
"Whee, is this something you could take care of at install, delete and
then create a symlink. Or would this still violate this policy"
Would this be a viable solution? (I told upstream I would ask)
I don't think this is a viable solution because the lintian error would
still remain.
I think one of the reasons he is hesitant is that the removal of
"prototype" from the .tar.gz that he hosts would severely impact his M$
Windows users (he has a rather large M$ Windows community). Actually I
could care less about M$ Windows users, but he does.
As I see it to comply with Policy 4.13 "prototype" will have to be
removed from upstreams .tar.gz.. Am I correct in this assumption?
This brings me to the next point what if upstream refuses to remove
"prototype" from the .tar.gz?
Thx
Charlie
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
