Re: linux-2.6_2.6.12-2_i386.changes REJECTED
On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 15:11 +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 07:56:13AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > On Mon, Aug 08, 2005 at 10:31:31PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > Why not use linux-image-foo instead of kernel-image-foo, w/ an
> > > appropriate Replaces/Conflicts/Provides?
> >
> > This is not an appropriate upgrade path as this headers don't ask apt to
> > install the new package.
>
> Even with the appropriate Replaces/Conflicts/Provides?
fyi, I was just suggesting this for the -latest packages. Since we
wouldn't maintain the old package names, we wouldn't have to epoch.
I don't know enough about the headers packages to know if we could do
the same thing there.
Reply to: