On 15/10/08 at 08:14 -0700, Ryan Niebur wrote: > Hi, > > On Wed, Oct 15, 2008 at 10:39:03AM +0200, Lucas Nussbaum wrote: > [...] > > > > > > > Some comments: > > > > why debhelper 7? I haven't following this closely, but AFAIK debhelper 7 > > > > is still consider unstable, right? > > > > > > > > > > I didn't know what version of debhelper cdbs needs, but 'dh_make > > > --cdbs' adds a build dependancy on version 7, so I assumed that it > > > would just be okay to use 7 (better safe than sorry). Should I change > > > it to something else? > > > > Asking our ftpmasters: > > 10:36 < lucas> Ganneff/tomv_w: is it recommended to set debian/compat to > > 7, or to stay at 6, for new packages? > > 10:37 < pusling> stay at 5 ? > > 10:37 < Ganneff> stay at what is in etch if you dont need more and love > > backporters. > > 10:37 < tomv_w> lucas: as far as we are concened, it doesn't matter > > 10:37 < Ganneff> go higher if you hate the world or really need some new > > feature. DO NOT if you dont really need it. > > 10:37 < Ganneff> for the archive itself it doesnt matter > > > > fixed. > Can this be uploaded now?
Could someone else have a second look please? Ping me in 5 days if nobody had a look. -- | Lucas Nussbaum | [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.lucas-nussbaum.net/ | | jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] GPG: 1024D/023B3F4F |
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
_______________________________________________ Pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers mailing list [email protected] http://lists.alioth.debian.org/mailman/listinfo/pkg-ruby-extras-maintainers
