Re: Release Notes patch
On Sat, Jun 10, 2000 at 11:55:36PM +0200, J.A. Bezemer wrote:
> Went over it again, some changes here and there, see comments. And added
> sparc potato-apt/dpkg stuff when using CDs.
Tnx... I see there were leftovers from your previous patch, sorry, I must
have missed them.
The only thing I didn't add is:
- with that Debian release. Of course, if <package/apt/ is not installed
+ with that Debian release. If <package/apt/ is not installed
+<!-- Hmmm. "Of course" here seems like blaming the user that he "should
+ have thought of this himself" - JAB -->
yet (it is not by default), install it now.
Well, yes, they should have done that themselves. There is little point in
having Debian without APT these days :) And I don't feel it's so
"blaming"...
BTW point release is the official name, that's why we should stick with it.
> > 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.
Right. :|
> Bugs are not likely to originate in the static-ness, since exactly the
> same sources were used.
Something can always go wrong, it's not bad to be a bit paranoid when it
comes to such important parts :)
> 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.
Hmmm. We'll see.
> Oh, and I saw that the rel-notes have ended up in upgrade-*/, which is good.
Yes, I built them and sent them to Richard yesterday.
> 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.
Right.
We ought to get the latest release notes on the web pages, too. Adam, can
you do this? (or tell me what's the rule for this in the Makefile :)
> And get rid of the upgrade-{arm,powerpc}/ since these don't have any
> upgrading.
Well, the upgrading part of the Release Notes is the most important, but the
"What's new" and "New installation" parts can be helpful, too. Although I do
agree that the directory name isn't appropriate... maybe we could put the
ARM and PowerPC versions in the respective binary-*/ directories? Hmmm.
--
Digital Electronic Being Intended for Assassination and Nullification
Reply to: