taylanbayi...@gmail.com (Taylan Ulrich "Bayırlı/Kammer") skribis:
> l...@gnu.org (Ludovic Courtès) writes: [...] >> In what sense is it unsuitable? It’s OK to have a couple of patches, >> but it’s not quite OK to host a fork of the upstream package, IMO (at >> the very least, it can create confusion and make it harder to see how it >> differs from the “real” package.) > > The repo is just for having a consistent place from which the source can > be fetched, as the author doesn't want source bundles to be downloaded > from his website. No changes to the code are made. > > The repo at GitLab didn't seem to tag releases properly. That being > said, now that I look at it, it seems more like an oversight for v098. > Other releases seem to be tagged quite consistently: > > https://gitlab.com/higan/higan/tags > > Should we use that repo instead? It's a bit more official than mine. Yes, I think it would be more appropriate. >>> * The program insists on looking in ~/.local/share for some data files >>> that are actually installed in $prefix/share; does my strategy here >>> look OK, in that I wrap the executable to copy the data files into >>> ~/.local/share every time the program is run? >> >> Sounds like a sledgehammer no? :-) >> >> If those files are immutable, what about patching Higan to look for >> those files in $datadir instead? > > Apparently, the files that are part of the distribution are pure data > files, i.e. fine to be read-only. However, the directory hierarchy of > which they're a part needs to be writable, as higan creates further > files there. With that cp -r, the directory hierarchy is made sure to > be there, and the data files made sure to be up to date. > > Although I didn't look too closely at the sources, patching higan to do > things differently would presumably be a nontrivial task, since it seems > bent on doing things in terms of this directory structure that contains > both pure data and read-write data files. Hmm OK. What do other distros do? Thank you! Ludo’.
