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

Re: Bug#508772: Please allow base-files 5 in lenny


Santiago Vila wrote:
> > Santiago Vila wrote:
> > > BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in
> > > 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number
> > > like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which
> > > break because of this? If not, I feel that the BTS is being abused.
> > 
> > If it wouldn't break stuff I wouldn't have filed this as a "important" bug
> > (but as minor)
> > 
> > openoffice.org 3.x is already prepared for lenny backports and does that
> > based on checking lsb_releases output.
> Ok, some questions:
> * Why don't you worry about lenny backports after lenny is stable? I thought
> it was a policy for *-backports that packages reach testing first, which
> is not obviouslty the case.

a) openoffice.org is an exception
b) I can still prepare it without uploading it to bpo, no?

> * Is lsb_release really required for that? Is not there any other
> way to achieve the same result?

I you find an other way to look up whether you build on lenny or sid...
But lsb_release is the tool for it.

> * What about release in lsb_*release*? One could argue that trying to           
> apply release properties to things which are not released is not the            
> way to go. 

One could argue that /etc/debian_version should tell the truth, regardless
of whether it's in a release (candidate) or in a development version.


 .''`.  René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer
 : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/
 `. `'  rene@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73
   `-   Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB  7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73

Reply to: