Dimitri John Ledkov dixit:
>> This is now up for review and testing. I’ll test it, too.
>On the surface that looks correct way to do it.
OK, thanks. My first tests look okay as well (after I have
changed the Depends in the package *using* it to allow for
rng-tools-debian; it might sense to use a versioned Provides
in vivid…) so far.
>I guess it might make sense to do a Castling move:
>rename ubuntu's rng-tools _source_ package to be rng-tools-gkernel but
>make it keep the binary package names.
>keep debian's rpng-tools _source_ package name but rename binary to be
>rng-tools-debian.
Hm, interesting. Yes, might make sense, but I didn’t want to
impose at first. How difficult is it to get something like
this accepted?
>That way we don't need to blacklist things and merges.ubuntu.com and
>the like will operate correctly and provide sensible outputs.
Ah okay. That will certainly be of aid when we indeed push
further code fixes into Debian.
bye,
//mirabilos
--
<diogenese> Beware of ritual lest you forget the meaning behind it.
<igli> yeah but it means if you really care about something, don't
ritualise it, or you will lose it. don't fetishise it, don't
obsess. or you'll forget why you love it in the first place.
--
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/1333293
Title:
version and parameter divergence from Debian
To manage notifications about this bug go to:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/rng-tools/+bug/1333293/+subscriptions
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
