Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
As long as the patches are made available to the same people who can get the binaries, you should be set.Mike Fedyk <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:Andreas Barth wrote:* Wouter Verhelst (email@example.com) [050321 00:25]:On Thu, Mar 17, 2005 at 10:40:43AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:If we don't wait for an arch, it gets out-of-sync quite soon, and due to e.g. legal requirements, we can't release that arch. (In other words, if an arch is too long ignored for testing, we should remove it, as we can't release it in any case.)Why not include diffs of the source for the arches that required porting before the packages would compile and work properly for that arch to comply with this legal requirement? This would allow for Tier2 arches to be released with a later point release or some other schedule. MikeI was thinking of having support in the buildd to fetch source, check a local patch archive for fixes, patch source, build package, add patch to each debs /usr/share/doc/package/. Would that satisfy the GPL or other DFSG licenses?
Though, just for ease of access, it should be made available in a similar way to what the tier1 arches do for their sources.