Re: renaming linux-kernel source package
On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:47:49AM +0300, dann frazier wrote:
> 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 it is late in the release process, we use testing-proposed-updates for
2.6.12 uploads. That is what it is for, and i suppose it is now finally fixed.