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

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

On Thu, 03 Nov 2011, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Just let me cite yourself:
> "This backport should thus not be used to build "normal" squeeze packages,
> at it could introduce regressions (due to the build flags no longer being
> set in the environment). "

I explained you those regressions 2 messages above in the thread. They are
not a big deal.

> This is not acceptable for a package in bpo. (there are several other reasons
> like the next dpkg version with full multi arch will hit unstable soon and I
> guess testing soon. And this is a version I really don't want to have in
> bpo).

That's why I have been uploading this version... I agree that the
multi-arch version is not really needed/desirable in backports at this

But version 1.16.1.<x> is solid and can last...

> And I am still not sure about any side effect that get introduced even
> with only dpkg-dev. We had this problems in the past with debhelper, it took
> me some time to cleanup the mess then. So - no thank you.

I am there to cleanup any mess that I introduce (if any). Please don't
block the work of other developers who are willing to put the required

That said, if by safety you prefer to add only dpkg-dev and libdpkg-perl,
I'm ok with this (i.e. sort of manually removing the
dpkg/dselect/libdpkg-dev binaries).

Raphaël Hertzog ◈ Debian Developer

Pre-order a copy of the Debian Administrator's Handbook and help
liberate it: http://debian-handbook.info/go/ulule-rh/

Reply to: