Re: Reorganizing packages
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:21:18PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > I object; if and when there ever is a new upstream kernel branch that we
> > want to track separately this would have to be reverted,
> No. We never had complete support for more than one branch. And I really
> doubt that anyone wants the sarge-maintenance-problem back.
No, I'm sure we don't want it; but if upstream ever changes its mind later
about 2.6 being the one true kernel, we might still have it.
> > and in the meantime
> > it would cause more confusion and work because of the need to shuffle the
> > transition packages for users to get a smooth upgrade from etch.
> The linux-image packages are already in etch.
But they weren't *used* as the metapackages that users installed. We still
need linux-image-2.6-foo packages in lenny for upgrade, if nothing else.
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.