From mboxrd@z Thu Jan 1 00:00:00 1970 Return-Path: Received: from cpsmtpm-eml104.kpnxchange.com ([195.121.3.8]:57660 "EHLO CPSMTPM-EML104.kpnxchange.com" rhost-flags-OK-OK-OK-OK) by vger.kernel.org with ESMTP id S1753704AbZDARx5 (ORCPT ); Wed, 1 Apr 2009 13:53:57 -0400 From: Frans Pop Subject: Re: Comments on deb-pkg patch series Date: Wed, 1 Apr 2009 19:53:52 +0200 References: <20090401162320.GY3901@baikonur.stro.at> <200904011907.31585.elendil@planet.nl> <20090401173236.GZ3901@baikonur.stro.at> In-Reply-To: <20090401173236.GZ3901@baikonur.stro.at> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline Message-Id: <200904011953.53889.elendil@planet.nl> Sender: linux-kbuild-owner@vger.kernel.org List-ID: To: maximilian attems Cc: linux-kbuild@vger.kernel.org, Andres Salomon , tytso@mit.edu, sam@ravnborg.org 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. > 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.