Re: Uploaded lilo 21-1 (source i386) to master
On 09-Dec-98, 09:02 (CST), Martin Mitchell <martin@debian.org> wrote:
>
> > I hope the illicit package was yanked from Incoming.
>
> No, in fact it was installed, the new release was based on the previous
> release of the lilo package, the 20-0.1 NMU which I also did. It works
> correctly and already fixes bugs #28617 and #16582.
Is this the same lilo 0.21 whose release notes say "This version should
be considered experimental and used with due precaution"? I question
whether it should be in slink at all, no matter *who* uploaded it.
Consider that in a very short time (I hope!) we are going to be
releasing slink, and hordes of people will be doing wholesale upgrades.
Many of them probably won't even notice that lilo got upgraded until
their machine won't boot 3 weeks later.
If it fixes important bugs (i.e. those that make it usuable for a class
of user (machine, whatever) not presently supported, I propose the
following:
1. revert the lilo package to 20-0.1.
2. package lilo 0.21 as lilo21-21-1, and have it conflict/replace lilo.
Put something in the description that says why you'd choose lilo21 over
lilo, but that if lilo works for you, don't do it. At an appropriate
time, the lilo package could be upgraded to lilo-21, and lilo21 removed.
Or just go to a pattern where the Lilo packages have the version number
as part of the name.
Am I overreacting? Maybe, but lilo is a key package for a lot of people,
and recovering from a lilo failure is non-trivial. (Yeah, I know you
should have a current boot floppy. And I do. But many don't.)
Steve
Reply to: