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

Re: dpkg_1.16.1.1~bpo60+1_i386.changes REJECTED

Raphael Hertzog schrieb am Thursday, den 03. November 2011:

> On Wed, 02 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> > IMHO he told us why we should expect trouble. Don't expect us ftpmasters to
> > ever accept a dpkg for bpo (I will write an extended answer in the next days,
> > but don't hold your breath on it).
> This is ridiculous.
> The worst that can happen is that packages built with the new dpkg-dev no
> longer support DEB_BUILD_OPTIONS=noopt and are built with upstream's
> default flags instead of "-O2 -g". There are almost no packages in squeeze
> which are using dpkg-buildflags properly so the introduction of hardening
> flags has no effect except on the backported packages which are explicitly
> using it (and are ready for it).
the worst that can happen - and it will happen - is that users install the
dpkg from bpo. And we now from the past that nearly every dpkg upgrade had
unwanted side effects.


Reply to: