Re: Addition of Newer Kernel @ etch & 1/2
On Wed, May 17, 2006 at 07:47:16AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > 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 ?
Hi Dannf, ..
Saturday has passed, and i guess debconf is finishing now or something. is
there any feedback on this issue ? Did the meeting take place yesterday as