On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 07:53:52PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote: > > > I continue to object to patch 4. > > > > your objection on patch 4 is disregarded. > > Eh, sorry, but that's not up to you. It's fine that you disagree with me. > But as you're not the owner or primary maintainer of the builddeb script, > you don't get to "disregard" comments from anybody. > > I'm happy to let Sam decide on this based on the given arguments. Maybe > others will comment too. no on patch 7 you had a technical reason, thus i agree with you that this needs better thought or work. > > it does *not* matter that linux-2.6 happens to be same name > > than the debian linux images source package. > > Technically it does not matter, correct. But for the same reason there is > also no good reason to make it the same as the debian linux images source > package. > > And as it is factually incorrect I still don't like it. It would very > simply result in incorrect info if people query their system using tools > like grep-dpkg, or even if they just just view the package info. we in the Debian kernel team use linux-2.6 as we use the linux-2.6 git tree as upstream, as it happens to be the primary upstream. so i still miss your point why make deb-pkg shouldn't show that too! btw this patch also fixes wrong section behaviour of make deb-pkg. -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kbuild" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
