On Friday 28 April 2006 11:28, Jeroen van Wolffelaar wrote: > If they do need to be in the Packages files too (so, multiple entries > in the same Packages file with the exact same package name), we need > some dak changes, and it's a bit risky, because dak assumes at various > places that the (packagename, suite, architecture) tuple is unique > (which then, it isn't anymore). But before exploring that possibility > -- is keeping those udebs in pool enough? Or would it require d-i > changes? Would d-i require changes if all udebs in question were in the > Packages files? We're talking about kernel udebs here. For some architectures these have the ABI in the package name, so for those there should be no problem, you'd have two different packages with different names. For example: cdrom-core-modules-2.4.27-2-386-di (1.04) cdrom-core-modules-2.4.27-3-386-di (1.04sarge1) Some other architectures - including powerpc, arm, mips(el) and the "speakup" kernel udebs for i386 - do not have the ABI in the package name. Here though, having both the old and the new in the Package file would not help because d-i could not distinguish between them anyway when downloading the udebs, so keeping the old udebs might result in breaking both the old _and_ the new media. My suggestion would be, if possible, to keep only those old kernel udebs that _do_ have the ABI in the package name.
Description: PGP signature