[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Version strings for backports

Thomas Stein schrieb am Sonntag, den 29. April 2007:

> 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.
They are still the same pool directory in the server. It is a restriction.
Believe me. Also we (as in ftp-masters) currently think the we don't want
such version numbers. As long as nobody comes up with a better solution than
those long bandworm version strings everybody will stay the same. 

Also we think that now that etch is released our support (as in ftp-masters)
will soon come to an end. Of course everybody will still be able to upload to
sarge-bpo with newer versions. But we would prefer if nobody would do so and
would only upload bugfixes. We thought about forcing this, but we decided
against it. 

> > > 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.
This was, of course, meaned the other way round. 


Reply to: