On Wednesday 01 April 2009, maximilian attems wrote: > > 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. [...] > so i still miss your point why make deb-pkg shouldn't show that too! See quoted text above. Even if a binary package _can_ be built from the linux-2.6 source package using deb-pkg, in almost all cases that will _not_ be the case. For me that in itself is sufficient reason not to set "Source: linux-2.6". It very simply does not reflect the truth. > btw this patch also fixes wrong section behaviour of make deb-pkg. Ah, yes. I forgot about that. I do agree with that part of the patch. With the recent restructuring of the archive the correct section for kernel packages would be "kernel" and not "admin", but for deb-pkg we probably should postpone that change for a few years as "kernel" is not yet valid for stable and oldstable. -- 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
