On Wed, 10 Oct 2012, Jasmine Hassan wrote: > Exactly, and gnome 2.x is no longer maintained, nor is Compiz 0.8.8, > last in release 0.8.x from April 2011
So you have no other solution than to take over upstream maintenance. > > In that case, I truly believe that MATE should fork Compiz as well > > and provide clean upstream sources (even if they are automatically > > generated by a script that does the renames and all). > > That's what I'm doing. Wolfgang Ulrich has also done similar, for > redhat/fedora http://forums.fedoraforum.org/showthread.php?t=276286 You should really collaborate on upstream maintenance and differ only in the packaging. > >> huge, unnecessary patch. I might as well modify the upstream tarball > >> and use that as the orig, which, of course, is not proper. > > > > Why not? > > In case someone decides to take over maintaining the package in > unstable (and that it returns to testing), will collide, and > apt-pinning is a pain for LMDE devs/maintainers. You certainly should not take over the compiz package. You should introduce "compiz-mate" that builds entirely new binary packages. Cheers, -- Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer Get the Debian Administrator's Handbook: → http://debian-handbook.info/get/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
