On Thu, Mar 03, 2011 at 04:35:09PM -0600, Jonathan Nieder wrote: > Bill Allombert wrote: > > Now preserving interfaces _does_ seem like an objection that's more > important. A policy "should" like this (potential) one represents a > bug but it is not necessarily more important than the other bug of > breaking compatibility. Breaking interfaces can be difficult and it > takes time. But if that's what it takes to make your path usable > with dpkg-divert (which is what the filename limit is about), that > _definitely_ seems worth it to me; and if that's what it takes to > make your package unpackable on kFreeBSD with a long leading prefix > that also seems worth it.
FWIW, I do not see any technical reason preventing dpkg-divert to be fixed not to overstep the limit (by mangling the filename). Cheers, -- Bill. <[email protected]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20110305104248.GA17663@yellowpig
