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

Re: Source compliance for D-I build dependencies: follow-up

On Fri, 16, Jan, 2009 at 12:21:14PM +0100, Adeodato Simó spoke thus..
> Btw, I don't know if it'd be a viable approach or not, but I'll mention
> it nevertheless: I wonder if for squeeze we should do the debian-installer
> uploads to t-p-u instead of unstable. We would still have to ensure
> source compliance, by copying if an update in testing must happen, but
> we would stop caring if unstable and testing are in sync.

The other option, which I've been thinking about for a while, would be
to allow binary packages (deb or udeb) to declare a field such as:

Source-Depends: foo (= 1.2-1)

We could then teach dak to hang on to source packages for as long as
they're still referenced by any binary package, thus making all this
much easier.

That's a post-lenny discussion though, but possibly worth considering on
another list somewhere.


Mark Hymers <mhy at debian dot org>

"I've had people claim that they actually make the sun rise rise every
 morning.  I've offered to test them by shooting them.  So far all these
 people have not responded to my endeavours."
     James Randi on BBCi Live Chat

Reply to: