Re: renaming linux-kernel source package
Andres Salomon wrote:
> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:11:49 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> > Andres Salomon wrote:
> >> Hi,
> >> 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
> >> points..
> >> * Source: linux-kernel-2.6, Version: 2.6.12-1
> >> * 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.
> >> * 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.
> > This makes it unlikely to ever get working mips/mipsel kernels in the
> > single source package.
> Perhaps you could give a reason why this is the case?
Because I'm currently at 2.5 of ~8 subarchitectures working for 2.6.12,
and I hear already talk about 2.6.13.