On Friday 21 April 2006 10:14, Andreas Barth wrote: > The question is however: should we try to keep the "old" udebs in > stable also? Are they not overwritten by the point release? Or should > we try to change stable so that we have two versions of the udebs in > stable? OK. As far as I'm concerned we've had a nice discussion about this and other options like not doing the update at all, but I'd really like to get back to business and make some progress. For one, we still don't have the new kernel udebs in the s-p-u debian-installer/binary-i386 Packages file! As for old images, we've always kind of accepted that some images would break: - the installer will scream loudly if it can't find matching kernel udebs (if the arch has an ABI in the kernel package name) - full CD/DVD images are _not_ affected, so stuff from vendors just keeps working - smaller images are relatively easy and cheap to replace As for keeping old kernel versions (both debs and udebs and corresponding sources). From what I gather so far: - it's not easy - it will cause conflicts in package names, or at least source package names - it won't prevent all kinds of breakage So, I suggest we forget about it for Sarge and if we want to try to do something like that for Etch, we'll have to spend a lot of time at debconf or elsewhere discussing possible solutions with representatives from kernel, FTP, release and d-i people involved. As for not releasing a new stable d-i. We will probably get in a position at some point where we really will want to. So it's better to just do it now and have the procedure in place than delaying the moment.
Description: PGP signature