Hi!
Went over it again, some changes here and there, see comments. And added sparc
potato-apt/dpkg stuff when using CDs.
On Wed, 7 Jun 2000, Josip Rodin wrote:
> BTW can you make the static dpkg and apt packages have a lower version
> number than the versions in the potato distribution, so that they get
> upgraded, otherwise people may be filing bugs against "dpkg 1.6.13" but the
> maintainer might not know if it's the static version offhand? Or will APT
> upgrade itself and dpkg after noticing md5sum of current package is
> different?
Renaming the pkgs is quite difficult; it would require asking the helpful
compilers because of the pgp/gpg signing. And it's very frozen, too. Bugs are
not likely to originate in the static-ness, since exactly the same sources
were used. But indeed, I did see apt/dpkg "upgrade" themselves to the same
version (but dynamic now) when upgrading with statics. Don't know if this
happens always.
Oh, and I saw that the rel-notes have ended up in upgrade-*/, which is good.
You might want to get these latest updates there, too; at least sparc needs
this. And ask Richard to copy the latest apt & dpkg from sparc/slink to
upgrade-sparc/ as well, because the doc assumes they're there. And get rid of
the upgrade-{arm,powerpc}/ since these don't have any upgrading.
Regards,
Anne Bezemer
Attachment:
release-notes.sgml.patch.gz
Description: Binary data