Hi, On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:58:40AM +0200, Adeodato Simó wrote: > * Bill Allombert [Mon, 12 Sep 2005 17:39:36 +0200]:
> > So I propose a alternate solution: > > > If the distro foobar rebuild packages on i386, they could use > > i386foobar as architecture name instead of i386, this way every > > package they rebuild will be clearly marked as such. > > > Of course, if foobar want to allow regular Debian package to be installed, > > they can just patch dpkg so that it accept both kind of package. > > > The morale of the story is: since we have now comprehensive plateform > > handling with CPU-SYSTEM, why not go a little farther and add a BUILDER > > field with the suitable logic in dpkg so that it allow to install > > packages from any builder by default ? > > This would be a gross hack, and I don't see why people who don't > bother to use a simple, clean and tested mechanism to mark rebuilds > (namely, dch -i) would go and use this other yet-to-be-implemented > one. I agree with Adeodato that this "solution" is a gross hack, but I'd rather start using something like dpkg-sig over the .deb files, so you would be able to check from where does that specific .deb file come from, be it Debian official or a deriviative, etc, w/o having to modify the sources. regards, guillem -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
