On Wed, Apr 01, 2009 at 08:35:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > 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. please get your linux-2.6 debianism out of your head. yes most of the time make deb-pkg will be used by an upstream tarball or git tree. it will certainly *not* be build by the "source" package linux. so that is certainly wrong. i repeat my argument that you have to go for the general case of linux-2.6, so it will be correct in many cases instead of beeing always incorrect. > > 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. ack, right. -- 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
