Re: Backporting SELinux to woody
On Thu, 11 Mar 2004 22:14, "Milan P. Stanic" <mps@rns-nis.co.yu> wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2004 at 09:42:52PM +1100, Russell Coker wrote:
> > If you copy all files related to a package intact then you don't have to
> > make such changes.
> >
> > If you make any changes at all (even re-compiling with a different
> > compiler and/or libc) then you must update the changelog appropriately.
>
> Is it enough to put note in changelog that the package is backported
> to woody?
Yes, that's fine.
> I can do that for binary packages tomorrow but I don't have
> enough time for sources until next week.
> Can I put in version something like libselinux1_1.6-0.1-bp.mps_i386.deb
> instead of libselinux1_1.6-0.1_i386.deb?
Sure. The exact version numbering isn't overly important. People who put
multiple back-port repositories in their apt config may get results that
don't work well, but that's just a mistake anyway. Just make sure that your
repository is in some way internally consistent and can be differentiated
from other repositories and everything will be fine.
--
http://www.coker.com.au/selinux/ My NSA Security Enhanced Linux packages
http://www.coker.com.au/bonnie++/ Bonnie++ hard drive benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/postal/ Postal SMTP/POP benchmark
http://www.coker.com.au/~russell/ My home page
Reply to: