On Mon, 05 Sep 2005 18:46:35 +0200 Daniel Leidert <daniel.leidert.spam@gmx.net> wrote: > Am Montag, den 05.09.2005, 15:06 +0200 schrieb Antonio Ospite: > > > > Since my packages are "unofficial" I want them to be built for > > sarge and sid (i use pbuilder for that), but in the same upstream > > version; is that allowed by the policy. > > No problem. Your packages are unofficial. Builds for Sarge are only > backports (see backports.org). I do the same for my packages. > Thanks for the hint but, doesn't backporting modify the original source package, does it? I wished to avoid that. > > What i have to do? > > Normally it is the best idea to show that an package is unofficial. A > lot of people therefor add their initials to the Debian revision. I > suggest the following (xy are the initials): > > Sid 0xy1 > Sarge 0xy0(.)sarge(.)1 > For unofficial i mean also packages that are not in debian at all, and i think that, althoug the process to add them to the unstable distribution is the way to go, providing the package "unofficially" to stable users is a good idea. And without an _explicit_ backport, i mean. > > And how do i have to report the different builds in the changelog? > > Is it an acceptable practise to add a changelog entry only for a > > build on a different distribution? > > Have a look at the backports.org packages. I think, this is a good > solution. > > Regards, Daniel Well, i see that with automatic repository there is (obviously) no way to have different binaries package thet share _exactly_the_same_ source package, so I think I'll follow the backport.org example. Many thanks, Antonio. -- Public key: http://studenti.unina.it/~ospite/aopubkey.asc Web Site: http://studenti.unina.it/~ospite
Attachment:
pgpwoBGsFlNnY.pgp
Description: PGP signature