also sprach Gerfried Fuchs <rhonda@deb.at> [2008.04.27.1159 +0400]:
> * martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> [2008-04-27 07:25:00 CEST]:
> > This is misrepresenting. I build my packages under etch, and they're
> > targeted at etch and work on etch. I build the source packages on
> > sid. Etch's dpkg-source can unpack them just fine.
>
> So you do /not/ build the source part of your packages on sid, only the
> binary part.
The other way around.
> While the first word clearly means "Make" I wouldn't try to fight
> that it "only" means the built environment for building the binary
> packages, especially since it doesn't mention binary at all. To me
> it is obvious that it stands also for building the source package.
The reason bpo exists is so that sid versions of binary packages can
be used on etch systems. We need to provide the source as well.
dpkg-source/etch can handle sid source packages (v1.0) because all
they do is add new fields. I don't see the reason why they are thus
rejected. I mean, I see the reason, it's just that I don't want to
be a contributing to a project with this kind of philosophy.
Problem solved. I apologise to all users of my backports who might
be inconvenienced. You are invited to use my repository.
--
.''`. martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :' : proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'` http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
`- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"emacs sucks, literally, not an insult, just a comment that it's
large enough to have a noticeable gravitational pull..."
-- mercury on #debian-devel
Attachment:
digital_signature_gpg.asc
Description: Digital signature (see http://martin-krafft.net/gpg/)