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

Re: unstable/binary-i386/Packages needs updating


	The new kernel packages don't over write the older packages,
 (or replace/conflict with them).  At least, they are not supposed**
 to. From this point on, each version of the kernel package is
 installable independent of however many older versions one may have
 on the machine.

	So, if they are on hold for just these reasons, they may be
 moved out of there; they provide the virtual packages
 kernel-source/kernel-headers/kernel-image, source/image have never
 been virtual packages.

	People, if packages depend on source/image instead of the
 virtual package, they should be updated, if there are a lot of
 packages that do so, then let me know asap so that I update the
 debian scripts, and get them to Simon quickly, we can then remove the
 old dependency from the packages after 1.1 is released.


** I may have messed up by making the new package in some way cause
   the old ones to be replaced, which, if true, is a bug in my
   scripts. I'll be providing Simon with a new version as soon as I
   get home. ms

>>"David" == David Engel <david@elo.ods.com> writes:

>> 2. I've been waiting for Simon's new kernel-source package. Any word
>> on why it has been delayed?

David> I posted a message a little while ago, describing the problems
David> with the packages that I moved into the HOLD directory.  The
David> problem with the new kernel packages is that they don't
David> "provide" the old package names (image and source).  Maybe they
David> aren't supposed to, but I wasn't sure.

"Elvis is my copilot."  -- Cal Keegan %%
Manoj Srivastava               Systems Research Programmer, Project Pilgrim,
Phone: (413) 545-3918                A143B Lederle Graduate Research Center,
Fax:   (413) 545-1249         University of Massachusetts, Amherst, MA 01003
<srivasta@pilgrim.umass.edu> <URL:http://www.pilgrim.umass.edu/%7Esrivasta/>

Reply to: