Hey, > > Sorry, I disagree with that. This change of cowdancer broke the > > support for chroot other than unstable and testing. This is not the > > idea of such a tool in my eyes.. > > I e.g. use it for creating backports for a customer and therefore a > > working etch chroot is essential for this work. Since this change of > > cowdancer has a great impact of usability of many chroots this has to > > be a RC Bug and nothing else. > > Since I doesn't want to play BTS pingpong here, please raise the > > severity at least to serious. > > You can always fall back to pbuilder. Yes, I know that there are alternatives, but brake a software and then tell... if you dislike this. please switch.... this is not what is wanted.
> > cowbuilder initially has been designed so that it works best with same > cowdancer version inside and outside of chroot, so it has never really > worked well on all architectures. There have been changes in place to > allow cowdancer to work across different versions, and that is after > etch has been released. Yes and this was good. cowdancer is^Wwas a good piece of software to build packages for different releases of debian. It's very sad to see that this is not intended. What please is the sense of using two different build-tools... pbuilder for etch and cowdancer for lenny+sid. If I have to switch for one distribution I'll switch for all... using 2 different syntaxes is too complicated here. > > 0.45 adds version and integrity checking for .ilist files, so that > it's now possible to change something to fix .ilist file format. > .ilist format needs to be changed to allow things like co-existing of > 64-bit and 32-bit applications within a chroot. Fine... but this brakes everything else. I'm going to discuss that on #debian-devel and on [EMAIL PROTECTED] In my eyes backports are for getting newer version into stable... but not to get _unstable_ working with stable... This have to be fixed in unstable not via backports... (furthermore, what about people who want's to build in a clena etch chroot for debian-security e.g.?? In some cases it won't be possible to build such packages on a system which is using backports... therefore cowdancer is unusable there. Please add a fallback function there in order to keep cowdancer compatible. Greetings Winnie -- .''`. Patrick Winnertz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> : :' : GNU/Linux Debian Developer `. `'` http://www.der-winnie.de http://people.skolelinux.org/~winnie `- Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems Spamtrap: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
