On Mon, Jun 25, 2007 at 06:08:06PM +0100, Wouter Verhelst wrote: > On Sat, Jun 23, 2007 at 10:40:11PM +0000, Bill Allombert wrote: > > On Sun, Jun 24, 2007 at 12:08:32AM +0200, Luk Claes wrote: > > > If you mean for etch, I guess you should upload them to etch-m68k. > > > > I will not do that: I do binary-only upload so etch-m68k Sources file > > would not match the Packages file. Also I want to make etch-m68k identical > > to etch, so etch-m68k Sources file should stay identical to etch Sources > > file. > > Just FTR, that's not the way it's implemented. Since we can't get > updates to etch anymore, etch-m68k is supposed to be a different suite, > which generates its own Sources file. You can /try/ to make them > identical, but if updates are needed, then that won't happen (because > then you really do need updates).
I am unsure I understand why sourceful updates would be needed: 1) Currently etch-m68k Source file is identical to etch Source file, even though some binary packages are not up-to-date (so they do not match the source packages), and I cannot update these binary packages because I get REJECT. 2) Etch _will_ be updated: for 4.0r1, 4.0r2, etc. We can certainly ask for etch-m68k Source file to be updated in the exact same way, providing we build the binary packages (which I have done for 4.0r1). 3) Remains the option to fix bugs by uploading new source packages with changes that will not get past the stable release. As far as I am concerned I don't know about any bugs in the current etch-m68k that would warrant that or serious efforts in that direction. If you go in that direction, I feel no right to object, but that would kill any attempt for inclusion in Etch. Cheers, -- Bill. <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Imagine a large red swirl here. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
