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

Re: Release-critical Bugreport for March 3, 2000

On 03-Mar-00, 12:26 (CST), Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com> wrote: 
> > Package: ntp (debian/main)
> > Maintainer: Bdale Garbee <bdale@gag.com>
> >   59090  slink->potato upgrade (probably) delete config file
> I'm unhappy about this, and soliciting inputs about whether having an xntp3
> transition meta package is really worth bumping the epoch on the ntp v4 
> sources?

You're unhappy that I reported a bug? Sorry, but if you disagree about
the content or severity, you *are* free to discuss with me (or others),
and as maintainer, your decision is final as far as I'm concerned.

As far as the epoch goes, that was only one suggestion, and an ugly
one, as I noted. My first suggestion(which perhaps wasn't clear) was to
simply make the version number of the xntp3 transition package higher
than the last "real" xntp3 package. There's no requirement (that I'm
aware of, anyway) that the xntp3 package version number match the ntp
version number.

Steve Greenland <vmole@swbell.net>
(Please do not CC me on mail sent to this list; I subscribe to and read
every list I post to.)

Reply to: