On Mon, 2010-01-25 at 20:19 +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Ben Hutchings (ben@decadent.org.uk) [100125 20:14]: > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 08:02:31PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > * Julien Cristau (jcristau@debian.org) [100125 19:27]: > > > > On Mon, Jan 25, 2010 at 18:56:47 +0100, Luk Claes wrote: > > > > > > > > > I guess this means that the next version is no candidate for the release > > > > > unless it gets a stable ABI (versioning) and should block the kernel > > > > > from migrating for the time being? > > > > > > > > > The 2.6.30 kernel and the current 2.6.32 one aren't candidates either, > > > > so I'm not sure what difference blocking the next one makes. > > > > > > That our testing users don't have to life with strange error messages > > > they wouldn't get if the abi would be bumped properly. > > > > OK, maybe we should start numbering ABIs with this next version. > > I'd appreciate that very much. There has been some argument over whether we should do this or not. Bastian and Max seem to think that many more ABI-changing config changes will still be needed and do not want to start numbering yet. I'm not convinced that changing the ABI number repeatedly in testing/unstable will even hurt that much since we no longer have to worry about dependent module packages in the archive. It may add to cruft on users' systems but this can be fixed after a reboot with 'apt-get autoremove'. I do want to see this argument resolved before building and uploading, but I also don't want to hold back security and stability fixes. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings You can't have everything. Where would you put it?
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part