Previously Jason Gunthorpe wrote: > dpkg can access it just fine in all the contexts where a Release file > can exist (being called from APT basically), the only problem I see is > that hand installed debs would lack this information - a much smaller > price to pay than having a proliferation of 'not quite the same' .debs. I'm sorry, but I absolutely don't want to end up in a situation where localle install debs (dpkg -i) lack functionality that an apt-installed deb has. That is just *wrong*. > Personally I find the thought of Corel/Stormix/etc all having their own > versions of all our packages with just the BTS tags changed quite > distressing. The real difference we have here is that in my opinion if Corel ships an unmodified Debian package Debian should get the bugreport, while you seem to think that Corel should get it even though they didn't touch the package. > People have always wanted Debian to be a base system, we should try to > help that by keeping hard references to our infrastructure out of the > archives. The bugs-tag(s) tell you who is responsible for a package and where you can file bugs. Even if Corel or Stormix ship a Debian package, it is still *our* package and we are responsible for it. So we should also get the bugreports. Wichert. -- _________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | wichert@wiggy.net http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
Attachment:
pgpi6EVBPrjwN.pgp
Description: PGP signature