[added the list again] -=| Giorgio Pioda, Thu, 24 May 2007 21:11:19 +0200 |=- > > If I were you, I'd try to make "make install" not strip anything, > > patching if necessary[1]. The problem with dh_install approach is > > that you have to check carefully if there is something new to > > install every now and then, which leads to problems (as already > > seen). > > > The world is nice because it is possible to find many different > opinions...
I see your confusion and I understand it. It is not so good feeling to try to satisfy contradicting requirements. I, personally, will not sponsor a package that replaces a perfectly working "make install" with broken dh_install usage. Even if dh_install usage is fixed, I still don't like it. This, of course, does not mean that nobody else will want to sponsor it. About the signing. the .dsc file is (wrapped): -------------------------------------- Format: 1.0 Source: peless Binary: peless [...] Files: c56508f8e052b10cd799c8e0a9253909 109646 peless_1.108.orig.tar.gz ccdc4f9b61f88c324acbd707f03cb5d2 2659 peless_1.108-1.diff.gz -------------------------------------- Compare this to (a random example) ftp://ftp.debian.org/debian/pool/main/g/glibc/glibc_2.3.6.ds1-13.dsc Without a proper signature[1], how can I be sure that the .dsc file I am downloading is the same you created? -- dam JabberID: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [1] missing trust-path aside
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
