Re: renaming linux-kernel source package
On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 04:49 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote:
> dann frazier <email@example.com> writes:
> > Note that one side-effect of dropping the minor number in the source
> > package name is that we won't be able to have one kernel in sid and one
> > in testing and be able to use sid as an update path. For example,
> > consider the way we had 2.6.10 in sid and 2.6.8 in testing late in
> > sarge. This allowed us to get some testing on a kernel and make a more
> > informed decision about which one we froze on for sarge. We can of
> > course use experimental for this, but we can't expect to get much
> > testing w/ experimental.
> Why not? Both testing and sid can have different versions of
> kernel-source-2.6 without problems. One just havs to report a RC bug
> against kernel-source-2.6 in sid to prevent it entering testing.
As a hypothetical example, say linux-2.6 (2.6.12-X) is in testing, and
its currently what we plan to ship in the next release. 2.6.14 is the
latest upstream. What should we keep in sid?
If we only upload new 2.6.12's into sid, we can let new releases flow
into testing, but we don't get 2.6.14 tested in sid. This prevents us
from making a well informed decision if we should want to consider
switching to 2.6.14 in testing, since we don't gain the testing of sid
If we go ahead and upload 2.6.14 to sid, then we can't use sid->testing
as a way to get new 2.6.12's into testing.
This example isn't so hypothetical - during sarge preparation, we'd
chosen 2.6.8 but were able to consider 2.6.10 later because it had been
maintained in sid.
dann frazier <firstname.lastname@example.org>