#include <hallo.h> * Bernd Schubert [Mon, Aug 07 2006, 01:34:58AM]: > Hi Nicolas, > > > As far as I am concerned, whenever possible, I'd rather not depend (or > > build-depend) on things that are not available in stable, since it makes > > back-poting more complex. Is there a good reason to use
I disagree. Backporter should be skilled enough to use a recent debhelper version. Unfortunately, even bp.o seems not to provide a sufficient version. > > dh_installmodules rather than copy the code snippet from > > http://lists-archives.org/debian-devel/24684-kernel-modules-postinst-script > >.html ? I think you can go with that snippet... if you wish. > Personally I have no real opinion about that. Using debhelper makes it easy > to > fix bugs like this the future. On the other hand it really wasn't that easy > to get debhelper-5.0.37 to sarge. Its not available on backports.org and to > port it myself, I had to backport several other packages as well. > Again on the other hand, Etch seems to get released on time which is not so > far in the future. Yep. I see no point in investing too much time in maintaining backwards compatibility. Eduard. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
