Previously Christopher C. Chimelis wrote: > Yeah, but we'll eventually run into problems wrt the new glibc/db setup if > this kind of practice continues.
No we won't, binaries compiled on potato will run just fine with the new glibc/db setup. > I'm sorry, but I'm of the opinion that woody developers should mostly > have their systems updated by now...or am I wrong on this? You probably are. Also not that in this case the upload was for both potato and woody, which makes the point moot. > What happened to the days of version numbering like "1.0.1-1potato" for > stable updates? Just curious... As I said, this upload was for both stable and unstable and deserves a normal version number. > I uploaded the new base-passwd package for woody only today. Once that is > installed, I'll build the one for potato. You could have just compiled it once for potato and uploaded it to both like everyone else is doing. That's a much cleaner solution then doing a useless recompile that you seem to insist on doing. Wichert. -- ________________________________________________________________ / Generally uninteresting signature - ignore at your convenience \ | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.liacs.nl/~wichert/ | | 1024D/2FA3BC2D 576E 100B 518D 2F16 36B0 2805 3CB8 9250 2FA3 BC2D |
