Re: Packages to go in 1.3.1r3 (Was: Debian Releases )
- To: Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@datasync.com>
- Cc: Debian Developers <debian-devel@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Packages to go in 1.3.1r3 (Was: Debian Releases )
- From: Brian White <bcwhite@verisim.com>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 1997 12:03:48 -0400
- Message-id: <[🔎] 340C38F8.15A6F0B8@verisim.com>
- References: <199708270849.KAA04614@wrds12.urz.uni-wuppertal.de> <34043150.7D16B64C@verisim.com> <873envsn99.fsf@slip-95-8.ots.utexas.edu> <3405C043.63F66AA8@verisim.com> <87sovunobj.fsf@slip-95-8.ots.utexas.edu> <3406BF96.C6E@best.ms.philips.com> <87lo1lm4jg.fsf@slip-95-8.ots.utexas.edu> <87sovs3on1.fsf@tiamat.datasync.com>
> I am in the process of releasing a version of kernel-package
> that I think is stable (the only thing people have come up with are a
> typo in a README file, and to preserve the time stamp of files during
> installation).
>
> The only problem with including this in stable is that I
> explicitly depend on dpkg-dev (>= 1.4.0.9), since earlier versions
> have the dpkg-gencontrol bug.
>
> Even though the newer kernel packages have some nice features,
> and do fix one major bug (the text files in /lib/modules/* issue), as
> long as we do not also upload a fixed version of dpkg-dev, there is
> no point in moving kernel-package to stable, since it would still be
> impossible to compile kernel-image packages.
I'm trying very hard to only net things that are absolutely necessary to
make it into bo-updates (soon to be: bo-untested)
Brian
( bcwhite@verisim.com )
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Touch passion when it comes your way. It's rare enough as it is;
don't walk away when it calls you by name. -- Marcus (Babylon 5)
--
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: