On Fri, May 14, 2004 at 09:50:00PM -0600, s. keeling wrote: > Incoming from Paul E Condon: > > On Wed, May 12, 2004 at 05:40:51PM +0800, Rick wrote: > > > > > > Our product is base on redhat,I will porting it to Debian,but in this > > > system,many procedure depend redhat rpms,for example: > > > glibc-2.3.2-11.9.i386.rpm, perl-5.8.0-88.i386.rpm,etc.. > > > > Some might try to use it. Some might get it to work. Some might even like it. But > > then those few will ask you to package it as a deb before they buy. The rest will > > And others will use rpm for rpms and Debian tools for .debs, including > alien to convert one to the other, or simply installing whatever we've > got to work with. > > I imagine there are cases in which this approach won't work, but we > see the same thing from people everyday who are limiting themselves > to only using debian tools. Just look at that stable vs. testing > vs. unstable thread a month ago. > > And that's possibly the worst news the original poster wants to hear; > he's got to make his stuff work on stable, testing, and unstable?!? Gah! > > > -- > Any technology distinguishable from magic is insufficiently advanced. > (*) http://www.spots.ab.ca/~keeling > - - Hi S, one doesnt make a product 'work' for stable, testing or unstable. every package start out it life as an unstable package. And if it proves its stability it will get moved to testing. And then if all goes well, it moves into stable. its stability and interaction with other packages are the criteria that the debian packager of an authors work uses to judge when it is moved to the next phase of readyness for 'stable'. -Kev
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature