Re: kernel-source-2.0.27 is obsolete (was: Re: kernel-source package have serious bugs)
Upon further consideration, I prefer, but don't insist on keep
kernel-source-2.0.27 in bo. kernel-source-2.0.27 has been in bo much
longer than 29 or 30. Many people have had ample opportunity to test
27. bo is currently frozen, and frozen releases are supposed to be
somewhat conservative. Keeping 2.0.27 in bo would tend to be a
conservation, safe thing, if 2.0.27 compiles.
I drop all objections if most people feel that 2.0.29 has been in bo
long enough, and is sufficiently tested to be a safe replacement for 2.0.27.
Herbert Xu <herbert@greathan.apana.org.au> writes:
>
> Package: ftp.debian.org
> Version: N/A
>
> Kevin Dalley wrote:
> > > Firstly I never said 2.0.29 is obsolete. In fact, this has been fixed in
> > > 2.0.29-5 which is still in the Incoming directory on master (it's been there
> > > for weeks). And secondly as far as I am concerned there is no point in keeping
> > > 2.0.27 in bo since there has been no reported bugs introduced in the latter
> > > versions that are serious enough to require the presense of 2.0.27 in bo.
> >
> >
> > Wonderful. Perhaps we agree after all. If 2.0.29-5 fixes the bug,
> > then 2.0.29 doesn't need a bug reported against it. I will concede
> > that point. Can we agree that kernel-source-2.0.27 should have bug
> > 6527 (Configure int() subroutine broken (or expr)) reported against it
> > until either:
> >
> > 1. It is removed from the bo distribution
> >
> > or
> >
> > 2. The bug is fixed.
>
> So unless anyone else objects, Guy, please remove 2.0.27 from bo.
>
--
Kevin Dalley
kevin@aimnet.com
--
TO UNSUBSCRIBE FROM THIS MAILING LIST: e-mail the word "unsubscribe" to
debian-devel-request@lists.debian.org .
Trouble? e-mail to templin@bucknell.edu .
Reply to: