--- Sam Hartman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > >>>>> "Michèl" == Michèl Alexandre Salim > <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > And if you come up with a clean solution for the > changelog issue, I > agree this is worth doing. If you do that, please > let me know what > your solution is. > As Richard Atterer said there should probably be another set of debian scripts provided by the upstream author (if possible) and maintained independently from the Debian-maintained scripts.
Rather a neat idea. And certainly I have seen it implemented - for Enlightenment 0.17 CVS for instance. It is still the duty of the Debian maintainer to make sure the Debian version of the scripts conform to Debian specifications, but if something major changes in the package the author(s) would know best what has changes. So it is a two-way process: if Debian policy changes the maintainer informs the author, if the packaging changes the author-maintained debian scripts will still allow building of the package seamlessly while the Debian maintainer work on integrating the changes. There could probably be a naming scheme enforced, with say package version x.y.z having an upstream deb at version x.y.z.hack.n while the Debian version at x.y.z.official.n - the names are just example, I presume official will be seen by dpkg as being a higher version than hack? Just my penny's worth.. Regards, Michel ____________________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Get your free @yahoo.co.uk address at http://mail.yahoo.co.uk or your free @yahoo.ie address at http://mail.yahoo.ie
