Nikolaus Schulz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > On Wed, Oct 03, 2007 at 12:57:06AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote:
>> It would require that you make modifications to the upstream source, >> probably. So will lots of other things, though. The only packages for >> which I don't end up needing some sort of patch management system or >> strategy for modifying the upstream source are ones for which I'm >> upstream. > Sorry, it's clear that I have to modify the source, and I have already > done so. With "patch management system" I meant something like dpatch. > Doesn't dumping several upstream tarballs in one Debian source package > require something like that? No, they're unrelated. Dumping unrelated tarballs together requires repackaging the upstream source to create a custom .orig.tar.gz file, documenting how you did that (I prefer doing so in debian/copyright), and ideally creating a get-orig-source debian/rules target to redo the work on an automated basis. > Configuration files and undocumented binary data, probably describing > internals of the supported printers. They seem to be read-only. > I was just worrying about the directory name, because it might not > comply with policy; especially since "bjlib" probably won't be the > package name. Policy doesn't require that /usr/lib subdirectories be named after the package. It's just recommended because it makes it easier to figure out what belongs to what without falling back on dpkg -S, and because it makes conflicts less likely. If nothing else is using that directory now, I don't expect it would be a problem. > It is an awful mess, yes! And I've asked myself more than once if it's > a sane idea to package this. But these drivers support printer models > and model specific features for which, to my knowledge, no free > alternative exists. And my impression is that many Debian and Ubuntu > users already use these drivers anyway; either by "alienizing" the > official Canon rpm's, or by installing the unofficial Debian packages at > [1]. And even the latter don't even try to meet Debian standards. > So I think, yes, there are many Debian users who need it; and I want to > package it. Clearly this won't be a very nice package, but it will be > an ugly package or no package at all. I just hope the thing will > finally be good enough to both find a sponsor and have the ftp-masters > wave it. Okay. I don't have an opinion one way or the other -- I personally hate printers, so I'm just commenting from a general Policy perspective. -- Russ Allbery ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) <http://www.eyrie.org/~eagle/> -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
