Re: [buildd] releasing lenny
It's just a pain getting everything resigned by a DD and I don't use a
buildd for most of these builds so there are no build logs ATM anyway.
I agree it's a pain - I was wondering whether it's worth the pain myself,
that's why I asked the question.
Build logs are not the issue - the signature on the .changes file is. For those
packages that I still maintain, I never use a buildd either :-)
I still need to make changes to dports w-b, and these binaries will
never be released with Debian. I am a NM, which means that I should be
Your changes to dports wanna-build are much appreciated. I am aware lenny
packages will never release with Debian lenny - my question is whether we need
to be careful about signatures with respect to any packages thay now go into
lenny, but might survive in the archive long enough to be transferred to
lenny+1 (if we ever make it back there). It will only be an issue if ftpmaster
actually agrees to relaxing conditions for reinclusion as we would like them
a DD soon (I'm mostly done with T&S 1, just need to write a manpage),
likely before we even have TLS in the kernel. Before we even
considered staging on d-ports, I was handling building and lenny
archive administraion on 127.0.0.1.
Now if I don't have upload rights, I'm still willing to help, it just
becomes rather frustating to do so.
I was fearing you might take this the wrong way - I do appreciate your help in
keeping the port alive as much anyone else. If you all agree my concerns here
don't really matter fpr one reason or another, feel free to override me.
I'll shut up now. Back to the kernel pit ...