Hi, Santiago Vila wrote: > > Santiago Vila wrote: > > > BTW: Should I worry about Bug#508772? This is the very first time in > > > 10 years that someone seems unconvenienced by seeing a version number > > > like 5.0 in unstable for a few weeks. Are there really packages which > > > break because of this? If not, I feel that the BTS is being abused. > > > > If it wouldn't break stuff I wouldn't have filed this as a "important" bug > > (but as minor) > > > > openoffice.org 3.x is already prepared for lenny backports and does that > > based on checking lsb_releases output. > > Ok, some questions: > > * Why don't you worry about lenny backports after lenny is stable? I thought > it was a policy for *-backports that packages reach testing first, which > is not obviouslty the case.
a) openoffice.org is an exception b) I can still prepare it without uploading it to bpo, no? > * Is lsb_release really required for that? Is not there any other > way to achieve the same result? I you find an other way to look up whether you build on lenny or sid... But lsb_release is the tool for it. > * What about release in lsb_*release*? One could argue that trying to > > apply release properties to things which are not released is not the > > way to go. One could argue that /etc/debian_version should tell the truth, regardless of whether it's in a release (candidate) or in a development version. Grüße/Regards, René -- .''`. René Engelhard -- Debian GNU/Linux Developer : :' : http://www.debian.org | http://people.debian.org/~rene/ `. `' r...@debian.org | GnuPG-Key ID: 248AEB73 `- Fingerprint: 41FA F208 28D4 7CA5 19BB 7AD9 F859 90B0 248A EB73 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-release-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
