On Fri, 14 Dec 2007 12:17:43 pm Holger Levsen wrote: > Hi, > > On Friday 14 December 2007 12:00, Steffen Joeris wrote: > > So you suggest only changing the name? > > Yes. > > > Are there any technical changes, > > like packages get build in a sid chroot > > As far as I'm concerned, packages should always be build in a sid chroot > with pbuilder. In Debian, and in Debian Edu. Aeh so far, we have always build our edu etch packages against etch. > > or sid d-i is used? > > I think we should build lenny images, with packages from Debian Edu lenny > and from Debian lenny and we should build sid images, with packages from > Debian Edu sid and from Debian sid. I thought we want to test lenny to see if lenny is ready. Maintainers use sid not only to release their software, especially at the end of a release cycle, they'll most like use sid for lenny+1 development. > > Is the sync > > process still the same (asking the ftpmasters)? > > Whoo? You're the one knowing dak better than me :-) > > Yes, it's the same. We can move packages from (our) sid to (our) lenny, > just as we can move packages from (our) etch-test to (our) etch. As we can > remove packages from our sid or lenny anytime. Just wanted to know, if you are suggesting a testing migration ;) Cheers Steffen
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.