On 29.04.2007, 15:51 Uhr, Alexander Wirt wrote:
> Micha Lenk schrieb am Sonntag, den 29. April 2007:
> > Hi,
> > Thomas Stein wrote:
> > >> Using same version strings in both suits looks broken for me.
> > > Backports for Sarge and Etch are kept in separate repositories, so the
> > > version strings should not be a problem:
> Thats wrong.
Wrong in what way? The lines in sources.list for Sarge and Etch are
different (see my previous mail). They point to different directories on
the server. That's the definition of separate repositories for me,
regardless whether pools or simple repositories are used.
> > There might be a problem when upgrading from Sarge + Backports to Etch +
> > Backports: The installed Package from sarge-backports will not be
> > replaced by the one in etch-backports if the versions are the same.
> Since we use pools and have a restrictions that backports in sarge-bpo must
> be bigger than in etch. That can't happen.
Backports in sarge-bpo _bigger_ than in etch? That would indeed leed to
problems.
Kind regards
Thomas
--
Only wimps use tape backup: _real_ men just upload their important stuff
on ftp, and let the rest of the world mirror it ;)
(Linus Torvalds in linux.dev.kernel)
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature