Re: RFS: unetbootin
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
On 10.12.2011 19:19, Eugene V. Lyubimkin wrote:
> This is generally not a valid reason. For example, this makes it
> impossible to build the package on the system which has debhelper v7
> installed, for no reason.
Well, given that this requirement is fulfilled in Squeeze as is, and
even newer backports are available to both, Squeeze and Lenny - despite
of reaching end of life very soon for the latter that's not a strong
> In the changelog of 565-2 you wrote:
> "Bumped debhelper version to 8 which should be required in future."
> Required by whom? In what future? I don't get what did you meant.
> Please explain (here in the list discussion). Or, alternatively, just
> revert this change.
It is perfectly fine for me if you require debhelper 7 as a personal
requirement to sponsor packages, but I disagree with you if you claim
that there would be no reason to use debhelper 8 at all.
We (and by "we" I mean "I" and some others) generally suggest people to
use modern packaging styles when introducing new packages to Debian. And
compat level 8 is what is recommended for new packages. I haven't looked
at this package, so I don't know if there are actually any benefits to
use 8 over 7, but that's not a reason not to do it.
I fail to see why we would need to keep compatibility forever, if there
is newer, better stuff available where some legacy problems can be
avoided entirely or worked around (that's what debhelper's compat level
is for, after all). If your package does not fail to build when using a
modern, recommended compatibility level, why not use it?
The idea of compatibility levels is to keep compatibility with old crap
which is known to be broken. Not the other way around.
For more background about that principle please refer to 
with kind regards,
IRC: daemonkeeper on Freenode/OFTC
GnuPG Key-ID: 0x9D80F36D
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.11 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----