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

Re: Intention to do a(nother) NMU of dpkg

Santiago Vila <sanvila@unex.es> writes:

> However, if needed, I would volunteer to create the debian-keyring
> package for hamm (it would be one of those packages whose source and
> binary are almost identical, and having a refresh target in
> debian/rules to get the source from ftp.debian.org). The package
> could then be taken over by you or Igor at any time.

I'd really prefer to do the package myself, nothing personal.  I also
seriously doubt you'll get Brian to accept a new package into hamm at
this stage of the game; feel free to prove me wrong though.  (In any
event, this is no longer dpkg relevant, please direct any replies,
about debian-keyring, to private mail or another list)

> > Again, this was a short term solution thing; I too seemed to
> > remember that being the consensus, so I made a note to check the
> > archives later and updated the shlibs.default.i386 file; better an
> > uptodate obsolete file than an outofdate one.
> If it is a useless file, I think there is no difference, really. Or
> it could be even worse, having it up-to-date may give the false
> impression that it "has" to be up-to-date or that it is useful at
> all, when in fact is going to be removed completely. I think it
> would be better not to touch it at all if it is going to be removed.

It's done no harm till now, broken as it is, I doubt it'll do any
fixed.  In any event, let's not argue over the details, if I do
another NMU it'll be removed (assuming we did remember correctly).

~Yawn And Walk North~                                  http://yawn.nocrew.org/

To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-dpkg-request@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmaster@lists.debian.org

Reply to: