On Mon, 2005-04-04 at 23:19 +0900, Horms wrote: > 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 2.6.11.6-<debianversion>, yiedling stuff like : > > > > kernel-source-2.6.11_2.6.11.6-1_all.deb > > > > 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? > In the long run, I have no problem with that; however, I'd rather wait to see the tree become a bit more established. -- Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part