[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: Reorganizing packages



Otavio Salvador <otavio@debian.org> writes:

> Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org> writes:
>
>> 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.
>
> I agree with you Steve and personally I don't see any good reason for
> dropping it.

After talking with "maks" at IRC I've changed my mind and now I agree on
the renaming.

The only good reason that I still have to keep it is due GIT tree name
but I don't think it's a requirement to us to follow it.

experimental might be used if we had a linux-2.7 or something while
it's not OK for sid and Maks and Bastian agree that we're not going to
have more the one kernel source on the distro anymore so there's no
more need to allow this diversion.

-- 
        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
---------------------------------------------
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
---------------------------------------------
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."



Reply to: