On Mon, 17 Jul 2000, Clint Adams wrote: > > I could definately see where you do 'dpkg-buildpackage -O debian' or > > 'dpkg-buildpackage -O corel' > > What? Why would anyone want a proliferation of packages that are identical > except for one control field? If Plagiarism GNU+Linux wants to take my > package, modify nothing except the control file, what purpose does it serve > to have bug reports go to them instead of to me? In fact, what purpose does > it serve to even have the duplicate package at all? > > If, on the other hand, they're actually going to modify the packing so that > all binaries live in /usr/local/var, then they should modify the Origin and > take credit for their genius.
There are 2 reasons I can think of to use the -O option: 1 - I rebuild the packages for commercial clients who simply want a guarantee that the provided source and binaries match. 2 - I rebuild with certain compiler optimizations set (like pentium) so maybe I use an option like '-O greenbush686' I do like this option a lot. It is a good way of informing the recipient that no changes were needed to the debian source - the package was simply rebuilt. But I would only do this building using debian tools so perhaps the bug reports should go to debian first. Whatever the developers agree on is fine with me in such a case. If they want the bug reports at least this option will let them know that the problem might be caused by somebody's use of a pre-alpha tool or the like. +----------------------------------------------------------------------+ + Paul Wade Greenbush Technologies Corporation + + mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.greenbush.com/ + +----------------------------------------------------------------------+
