Re: 2.6.12 upload

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:58:51PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Mon, Aug 22, 2005 at 12:24:14PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > General problems:
> > > - The 2.6 (instead of 2.6.12 etc.) versioning means previous versions
> > >   are thrown out of the archive, anything which isn't ready until then
> > >   will lose support.
> > >   It is IMHO not realistic to expect the rest of the world to wait for
> > >   some obscure subarchitecture.
> > 
> > Ok, this is a valid point, the current argument from Andres is that we have
> > one set in unstable and one in testing, and that we keep arches with problems
> > artificially outside of testing, so the older version remain.
> 
> You can just disable the build of that images and the old packages will
> remain until dak is fixed to remove such sourceless packages (Okay, the
> headers will be not installable further).

I was under the impression that the older source would stau in such cases. But
this doesn't solve all, since it is nice to have a known working subset of
kernels, maybe we could have a scheme where the two last are always there, and
before the release, we freeze, remove the not wanted from testing, keep it
there, and also as copy in sid until the release, and stay with the two latest
kernels in sid for the next-gen development.

> > > - Coupling the smallest fix for a subarchitecture to a full upload of
> > >   the whole arch any package puts pressure on the autobuilder network
> > >   without much gain, and causes many users to download "new" kernels
> > >   identical to the old ones because of the version bump. -> E.g.
> > >   disable CONFIG_PREEMPT for ia64 and let everyone upgrade their kernel.
> > 
> > This can and should be fixed with the so called arch-specific uploads
> > (-x.0.0.1 or something such), which is a mechanism supposedly documented for
> > this exact purpose (for example, powerpc could have rebuilt -3 in this way).
> 
> No, bin-NMUs are only allowed to have a updated changelog.

Ok. Maybe we can discuss to have something else with the buildd/ftp guys, as
our need is specific. This is mostly a buildd admin problem anyway.

> > Not sure about the ftp-master/buildd admin side of this however. Any comment
> > on this are welcome.
> 
> x-y.0.1 is mapped to source x-y.

Ok, so this is fixed, thanks, i can now do local builds more easily yoo :)

Friendly,

Sven Luther