On Tue, Oct 06, 2009 at 08:55:42AM +0200, Mike Hommey wrote: > > Why didn't you suggest that when the plan was outlined :) > > I did.
Then I must have missed that. Link please? If you did, maybe we "rejected" it because it's cause temporary disruption. Not sure. > > > one, so that it doesn't make backporting harder ? > > > > That is a reason, but then again you can also make backports of this > > with the current thing (ifeqs in rules, debian/rules control target before > > the > > build, ..) > > How exactly is this supposed not to be making backporting harder than > having nothing to do ? It makes it much easier than having do do it on every backport. It's just needed once - and not even by the backporter... Grüße/Regards, Rene -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: D03E3E70 `- Fingerprint: E12D EA46 7506 70CF A960 801D 0AA0 4571 D03E 3E70 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-dist-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
