Re: possible compromise for ITP: linux?
Joey Hess <joeyh@debian.org> wrote:
>
> Problems of this approach, off the top of my head:
>
> a. Having a binary package of the same name that is produced by
> different source packages on different architectures may or may not
> drive the archive maintainence scripts nuts. On the other hand,
> it uses no more space in the archive than our kernel sources use
> today.
We already have that today. The generic kernel headers package is
provided by different source packages on different architectures.
> b. If kernel-source-2.4.22 produces a "linux" package, then when 2.4.23
> comes out, kernel-source-2.4.22 has to either be removed from the
> archive, or revved to stop providing the linux package before
> kernel-source-2.4.23 can begin to do so.
It's not a problem since this situation is identical to that of
the kernel-image-2.4-<foo> packages which never had any troubles.
--
Debian GNU/Linux 3.0 is out! ( http://www.debian.org/ )
Email: Herbert Xu ~{PmV>HI~} <herbert@gondor.apana.org.au>
Home Page: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/
PGP Key: http://gondor.apana.org.au/~herbert/pubkey.txt
Reply to: