Re: Packages for adoption
* martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> [2008-04-27 10:48:37 CEST]:
> 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.
Yes, sorry, but well, it is as this.
> > 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.
No, so that lenny versions of packages can be used on etch systems. And
yes, indeed a package doesn't only contain of the binary packages but
also the source.
> dpkg-source/etch can handle sid source packages (v1.0) because all
> they do is add new fields.
Yes, but those additional fields aren't checked on etch. The
sha checksums isn't checked by dpkg-source on etch and thus could
contain what it wants, making users believe in a false safety due to
that it doesn't only contain md5 sums but also sha sums. I consider this
a bad thing, users shouldn't be lured into false (because of
not-existent) safety.
> I don't see the reason why they are thus rejected.
See above, if you like to accept it.
> 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.
You don't want to contribute to a project that does tight checking of
its contents? Then you shouldn't contribute to Debian as a whole because
there is more tight checking happening in unstable, which I expect you
to be very much aware of.
Slightly disappointed,
Rhonda
Reply to: