On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 11:10:00PM +0200, Henning Makholm wrote: > Scripsit Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> > > On Thu, Jun 01, 2006 at 10:56:37AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > >> And you asked : > >> And if there are failures again with -15, can we expect a -16 soon that > >> fixes them *without* needing to add new packages? > > Which was a request, not a complaint. My complaints come from Bastian's > > response that no, he did not intend to focus -16 on getting 2.6.16 into > > testing, regardless of what bugs showed up in -15. > Don't _all_ new kernel packages require NEW processing because kernel > packages have the entire version string embedded in the package name > (for good and sound reasons)? Kernel package names are only changed on ABI changes, of which new upstream versions are the majority. There is no reason why the 16th revision of 2.6.16 packages should necessarily require NEW processing. > Or is dak smart enough to exclude exactly this case from the NEW detour? No. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature