Re: isdnutils and 2.0.36
On Tue 15 Dec 1998, Roland Rosenfeld wrote:
> Oscar Levi <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > I support making it optional for the minority of people who use ISDN
> > adaptors. It would be tragic if we upgraded the kernel and broke
> > packages.
The description can include a warning about it not being tested as well
as the 2.0.35 version, and why you might want to install it anyway.
> So what's about renaming isdnutils-3 to isdnutils3 and install two
> packages (isdnutils and isdnutils3) in slink as well as both kernels
> (maybe with 2.0.35 as the default)? This should solve all problems.
> People can choose themselves whether they want to use the very stable
> kernel (which has some bugs, which are fixed in 2.0.36) or whether
> they want to try 2.0.36 and the new isdnutils (if they use ISDN).
If 2.0.36 goes in, I'd have to at least upload an isdnutils that is
identical to the current slink one, but which conflicts with kernel
2.0.36, as that is simply not compatible. This might be a good idea
anyway, to prevent problems when people upgrade to a new kernel
without upgrading the rest... Would this be sufficient reason to
allow an upgrade (of the current slink version)?
home: email@example.com | work: firstname.lastname@example.org | debian: email@example.com
http://www.wurtel.demon.nl | Murphy Software, Enschede, the Netherlands