Re: Addition of Newer Kernel @ etch & 1/2
> If we want to prepare for this possibility, the one issue that the d-i
> folks pointed out is that we'd probably want to refactor our meta
> packages such that we could have both metapackages for the latest
> 2.6.N and additional packages for the latest 2.6.N+, so users can
> track whichever they prefer. One suggestion was to use
> linux-image-etch-foo for tracking 2.6.N and something like
> linux-image-etch+-foo for tracking the 2.6.N+ update.
Notice that this issue rejoins the discussion about metapackages we had
concerning the 2.6.16-only etch branch, where i proposed already a similar
scheme (altough having the normal linux-image-foo for etch, and another set of
metapackages for the latest sid version not aimed at etch).
Could you also please discuss with the d-i people the oportunity of, not
including the .udeb generation into the main linux-2.6 packages, but
integrating them again in a single source linux-2.6-udebs or whatever package,
which would hold all arches, over the current situation ?