Re: renaming linux-kernel source package
On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:44:56 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote:
> 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.
I wasn't aware that you worked on mips/mipsel stuff for older kernels in
the archive anyways, except for the case when we decide to stabilize on a
certain version for a release. In any case, now that experimental is
autobuilt, we can upload a new kernel to it and stabilize architectures,
while simultaneously updating the older version in sid