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

Bug#630474: linux 3.0 package names should probably not include SUBLEVEL



On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 15:26 +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> On Tue, 2011-06-14 at 12:00 +0000, maximilian attems wrote:
> > On Tue, Jun 14, 2011 at 12:41:13PM +0200, Julian Andres Klode wrote:
> > > Package: linux-2.6
> > > Version: 3.0.0~rc2-1~experimental.1
> > > Severity: normal
> > > 
> > > SUBLEVEL is reserved for -stable in kernel 3.0 and
> > > newer. As Debian kernels did not include the part
> > > of the version number used for stable updates in
> > > the past, I expect that you are not planning to
> > > include them now.
> > > 
> > > Thus, the package names should be linux-image-3.0-*,
> > > not linux-image-3.0.0-*.
> > 
> > no.
> > next time ask on d-kernel for advise before filing useless reports.
> Then please explain why. The kernel's version is 3.0, not 3.0.0. Once
> there is 3.0.X, do you want to introduce new linux-image-3.0.X-*
> packages every few weeks?

No.

> There appears to be no reason for using 3.0.0,
> upstream uses 3.0, others use 3.0, so why deviate?
[...]

Version numbers in package names should match utsname::release.
And utsname::release still includes SUBLEVEL (3.0.0-rc3).

Ben.

-- 
Ben Hutchings
Larkinson's Law: All laws are basically false.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part


Reply to: