Re: renaming linux-kernel source package
On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Andres Salomon wrote:
> I'm going to suggest renaming our 2.6.12 source package from
> linux-kernel-2.6.12 to linux-kernel-2.6. Thoughts? Dann Frazier and I
> have discussed this on IRC a little bit, and come up w/ the following
> * Source: linux-kernel-2.6, Version: 2.6.12-1
why not linux-2.6?
that matches upstream name.
> * As long as each arch is in synch, there are no GPL issues with older
> binary packages being in the archive w/out the source.
> * Nicer for bugs; http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linux-kernel-2.6.html
> gets us all bugs for 2.6.12+ kernels, versus having to look at
> linux-kernel-2.6.12.html, linux-kernel-2.6.13.html, etc.
indeed current bts interface for the kernel *debs is confusing.
> * Older kernels get removed; no need to ask for manual removal of
> linux-kernel-2.6.12 after 2.6.13 becomes available for all archs.
> However, we lose the ability to have multiple 2.6's in a release,
> which sounds like a win to me; we shouldn't be doing multiple 2.6
> releases anymore anyways, the security team has made it clear they
> don't want to support multiple kernels, and it would be extra pressure
> for all archs to keep up.
there is still snapshot.d.o for unhappy testers.
> * Testing would contain the latest kernel that built for all archs
> (archs that build out of the linux-kernel-2.6 package, anyways), while
> sid would contain the latest bleeding edge kernel which may or may not
> FTBFS for some archs. In order to get the new kernel into testing,
> we'd have to either fix these issues or discuss dropping archs (which
> we're going to have to do anyways w/ single-source packaging).