Re: sudo-1.4.1-1 uploaded to chiark
Ian Jackson writes:
>
> David Engel writes ("Re: sudo-1.4.1-1 uploaded to chiark"):
> > I don't know if this is spelled out in the packaging guidelines or
> > not, but shouldn't we restrict ourselves to only using publicly
> > released compilers and libraries for regular packages.
>
> I've added the following paragraph:
>
> @item
> Please make sure that you use only released versions of shared libraries
> to build your packages; otherwise other users will not be able to run
> your binaries properly. Producing source packages that depend on
> unreleased compilers is also usually a good idea.
>
> Ian.
That's not very consistent. First of all when releasing a binary it makes no
difference which shared libraray I have, only the includes files make a
difference. I did test my binaries on a machine with a released version. Do
you ask all maintainers who work with 5.2.18 to test their binaries with
5.0.9, too? It's rather difficult to keep two libc versions on one machine.
And to use a different one for packaging my software is not always possible
as I need root access.
And while you're at it, you should definitely add a paragraph into the
packaging guidelines which kernel version we have to use. The kernel changes
made a lot of troubles until we decided to go with he 1.3 series, which BTW
is not a released version, too. So with you're own logic we should still go
with 1.2.13. Go figure!
As for the compiler, do you check if all binaries are compiled with
-fno-strenght-reduce? And how about other gcc-2.7.2 bugs. Not to talk about
even older gcc versions. So I'm doing wrong by using a compiler with much
less bugs? And the source doesn't depend on the compiler anyway.
IMO you're paragraph should read:
@item
Please make sure that your package works on an original Debian
distribution.
That's it. However, even this paragraph doesn't seem to be useful. In the
worst case a bug report is filed and the package updated. And I did correct
my all bugs. So you cannot blame any Debian problem on me using a
development libc + gcc.
I would like to know whether the common point of view is to write the
developmant environment out for the maintainers. Bruce? Others?
If it is you should:
1) Give out a list of packages that have to be installed.
2) Add the following packages (my ones of course) to the list of packages that
need a new maintainer as I will definitely not stop working on other
areas of Linux: fdutils, quota, joe, modules, sudo, umsdos.
I will probably not be able to answer any more email before coming back from
vacation, since I'm leaving tomorrow. Nevertheless I will read and answer
when I come back.
Michael
--
Michael Meskes | _____ ________ __ ____
| / ___// ____/ // / / __ \___ __________
meskes@informatik.rwth-aachen.de | \__ \/ /_ / // /_/ /_/ / _ \/ ___/ ___/
| ___/ / __/ /__ __/\__, / __/ / (__ )
Use Debian/GNU Linux! | /____/_/ /_/ /____/\___/_/ /____/
Reply to: