Bug#301799: kernel-tree-2.6.11: new upstream source available: 126.96.36.199
On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 12:41:33PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:08:18AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:55:27AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote:
> > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Horms wrote:
> > > > > It is much more user-friendly, and it readly provides information on the
> > > > > most up-to-date tree it was synced with, in aptitude/dselect/synaptic...
> > > >
> > > > Yes, but the problem is that each time it changes backages
> > > > have to go through a NEW cycle.
> > >
> > > I assume you mean for the binary packages? I was only paying attention to
> > > the kernel-source, kernel-patch and kernel-tree packages...
> > To follow the current naming convention, I believe that they
> > all would have to go through new, and also would not be
> > an upgrade path, but a fresh install for users.
> No, the packages would still be kernel-*-2.6.11, but the version number would
> be 188.8.131.52-<debianversion>, yiedling stuff like :
> Which is ok, and doesn't trigger NEW. I vote for that.
Understood. It looks a bit weird to me, but I guess it is fine,
especially as we are including the relevant patches - all of them the
last time I checked. dilinger, do you have any objections?