On Tue, 06 Oct 2009, Charles Plessy wrote: > Le Mon, Oct 05, 2009 at 06:33:53PM -0700, Don Armstrong a écrit : > > In the few cases where I've run into this problem, patches have > > been readily accepted upstream. > > Indeed, that is the way to go, and the core of my argument is that > renaming before the patches are accepted is a deviation that wastes > the time of our users (in that case, me).
Sure, but I'd expect that in most cases, a simple patch to upstream, with a resultant ack for the next distribution should take a few days at most. If there's a total rejection, then it's a bug, but it's most likely wontfix. In the cases where upstream is unresponsive that it takes more than a few days to do the go-around, it probably shouldn't be being packaged in the first place. [Or at least, it shouldn't be uploaded until the upstream gets back to you.] > Yes, at the beginning I was solving the problem by moving the > scripts to /usr/share. But again, as a user of my own package, I was > wasting my own time at work, and stopped doing this. Perhaps it'd be useful for continued discussion if specific examples of packages and executables hwich are installed to a system PATH which you've needed to rename would help work through this. Don Armstrong -- All bad precedents began as justifiable measures. -- Gaius Julius Caesar in "The Conspiracy of Catiline" by Sallust http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-policy-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
