Re: [buildd] releasing lenny
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
No, no binaries from lenny will be going back into unstable to make
sure. If it becomes an issue, it isn't very difficult to resign the
changes files after the fact.
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Michael Schmitz
> Hi Michael,
>> 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
> 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
> I'll shut up now. Back to the kernel pit ...