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

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: