[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: [buildd] releasing lenny

Hash: SHA1

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.

Version: GnuPG v1.4.9 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: http://getfiregpg.org


On Thu, Sep 4, 2008 at 11:45 PM, Michael Schmitz
<schmitz@biophys.uni-duesseldorf.de> wrote:
> 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
> 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
> to.
>> 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
>> 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 ...
>        Michael

Reply to: