Re: Solving the linux-2.6 firmware issue
Frederik Schueler writes:
> we rename the source package, not the binary packages. No need to
> change anything anywhere, we just want a new tarball in the archive
Could you explain why a new "upstream version number" is insufficient?
i.e. why uploading linux-2.6_2.6.18dfsg-1 as a followup to
linux-2.6_2.6.18-8 would not solve the problem?
> The only real drawback will be the bugreports getting attached to
> linux-2.6.18 instead of linux-2.6 (like we already had with .16).
If you would change the version number instead of the package name,
you would avoid creating that issue.