[Debian-science-sagemath] pari-sage or pari ?

[Julien Puydt]

On 23/08/2016 22:48, jdemeyer at cage.ugent.be wrote:
>
>> There is generally a reason why a patch is rejected. If things go too
>> slowly, it's ok to add it to your package -- as long as it's
>> documented (see http://dep.debian.net/deps/dep3/ ).
>
> So Debian also adds patches to upstream projects. Why is that OK but not
> for Sage? Why the double standard?

There is a single standard ; here is what the maintainer guide says 
about modifying upstream's sources:
https://www.debian.org/doc/manuals/maint-guide/modify.en.html

Can you point me where it says it's ok to basically fork what one is 
supposed to package?

>> But that doesn't mean packaging something under a name where users
>> will get lost if they get the same-named software from another
>> distribution : we're packaging an upstream project, not making
>> something out of the blue!
>>
>> Instead of releasing foo-3.14+0xdeadbeef-p257 in sage-the-distribution
>> as if it were "foo", which it isn't because you considered upstream's
>> offering unsuitable and patched it left and right, just release
>> sagefoo-3.14 in sage-the-distribution.
>
> Is it really just a matter of naming? Because then the whole discussion
> is just silly....

Well, the attitude towards upstream is the real crux of the matter, but 
changing the names can certainly help.

Snark on #debian-science