David Starner schrieb:
> On Tue, Sep 05, 2000 at 01:29:02AM +0200, Tom Cato Amundsen wrote:
> > On Mon, Sep 04, 2000 at 07:19:11PM +0000, michael d. ivey wrote:
> > > my main server is potato. is it "bad" for me to be building packages
> > > there if they are destined for woody? should i start building on a
> > > woody box?
> > >
> > If possible, your package should depend on packages in potato only.
> > Then users won't be forced to install other unstable packages,
> > just to try out your package.
> Contrary to Tom, though, if packages are destined for woody, packages
> should be built on woody, because that's how the build demons will
> build them, that's how people will run them, and that's how they
> will eventually be released. It will also help shake out bugs in
> unstable libraries.
That sounds reasonable.
> If you want to build them so that potato users can use them,
> do so and store them in a directory on master or a private
> machine and tell people how to get them.
Or just educate people on how to use dpkg-buildpackage (apt-get -b
source). This would be even easier if dpkg-buildpackage would
handle Build-<Relations> itself. I like debian source
packages ...
ciao, 2ri
--
They are really completely different things, so don't mix them up, but they
have a close relation to each other.
-- http://hurddocs.org/whatis/translator.html
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
