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

Re: Bits from the dpkg maintainer

On Tue, 2005-06-14 at 09:18 +0100, Simon Huggins wrote:

> On Tue, Jun 14, 2005 at 08:30:07AM +0100, Scott James Remnant wrote:
> > It's no harder to backport dpkg-dev than it is debhelper; so I think
> > it really just comes down to what formats the FTP masters (and dear
> > katie) are prepared to accept.
> Are you pushing for this or just seeing what's going to happen?  Do you
> know if Ubuntu going to support the new format during etch's testing
> phase (say 18 months for argument's sake)?
I'm not particularly pushing, in the sense that pushing within Debian
would involve writing the patches to katie etc. myself and I don't
really have the time to do that.

I'm leaning and gesticulating wildly in that direction though.

Ubuntu has a 6-monthly release schedule, so they're almost certain to
adopt new formats before Debian.  A good example is the fact that Ubuntu
shipped bz2-compressed debs in hoary for a few packages that benefited
from it, and Debian doesn't even allow them to be uploaded.

While I don't know what Ubuntu's plans are, because I'm as equally
uninvolved in those as I am with Debian, I would not be surprised if
their maintainers chose to adopt it for their source packages once build
support is available.  Though I wouldn't expect them to convert things.

Have you ever, ever felt like this?
Had strange things happen?  Are you going round the twist?

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: