Hi, On Mon, Sep 05, 2005 at 03:06:11PM +0200, Antonio Ospite wrote: > Since my packages are "unofficial" I want them to be built for sarge and > sid (i use pbuilder for that), but in the same upstream version; is that > allowed by the policy. What i have to do? Policy is only about the official Debian archive, not about things you build for yourself. If you want to get your packages into the official archive, they will only enter unstable. Packages get in stable by going from unstable to testing after some time, and then testing being released makes it stable (which then includes the package). Very few things get changed in stable. Security bugs do, and I think translation updates as well, but I'm not sure about that. > I tought i can use a different package version for binary packages > targeted to different distribution, does something like package_x.x-1 > for sid and package_x.x-1sarge for sarge sound reasonable to you? It doesn't sound good to me. If you have the same source package, and the only difference is that it must be compiled with the libs from stable instead of the ones from unstable, I don't think it should be a different version. However, maybe someone else has something sensible to say about it. Of course the pool doesn't allow two binary packages of the same name, because they must be in the same directory. > And how do i have to report the different builds in the changelog? > Is it an acceptable practise to add a changelog entry only for a build > on a different distribution? In the official archive, this doesn't happen. If there is a new version for unstable, then it will not have the same name as the one in stable (because it's a new version). If it's still the same version, then it really is the same file as well, so in that case the name _should_ be the same. Bye, Bas -- I encourage people to send encrypted e-mail (see http://www.gnupg.org). If you have problems reading my e-mail, use a better reader. Please send the central message of e-mails as plain text in the message body, not as HTML and definitely not as MS Word. Please do not use the MS Word format for attachments either. For more information, see http://129.125.47.90/e-mail.html
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature