SLUG Mailing List Archives
Re: [SLUG] helix .debs
- To: SLUG@xxxxxxxxxxx
- Subject: Re: [SLUG] helix .debs
- From: Anand Kumria <wildfire@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu Sep 28 11:56:35 2000
- Reply-to: slug@xxxxxxxxxxx
- User-agent: Mutt/1.2i
On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 07:24:34PM +1100, Angus Lees wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 27, 2000 at 01:44:50PM +1100, Jeff Waugh wrote:
> > It's starting to become a hassle. Peter at Helix Code doesn't really have
> > the peer review or responsibility that the official Debian maintainers do.
> > So, things get through which otherwise wouldn't. Not good.
> > This time it's a dead Sawfish package.
> why doesn't helix (or someone else) just upload the .debs to potato,
> so they're in the standard dist?
> (or does this happen already, and i just haven't noticed?)
There was a discussion about this on debian-project a week (or two) ago.
Basically it seems that most of them weren't aware of how to formulate
version numbers that wouldn't conflict with the debian way of doing
A result of that was the realisation that libraries should be kept
`distinct' or `different'. It may take a while until the result gets