Re: Re: Packages not supportable in squeeze-lts

[Moritz Mühlenhoff <jmm@inutil.org>]

On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:30:40PM +0100, Dominic Hargreaves wrote:
> On Sat, May 17, 2014 at 09:43:20AM +0200, Raphael Geissert wrote:
> > On Friday 16 May 2014 17:39:02 Moritz Muehlenhoff wrote:
> > [...]
> > > What could be done is to provide the wheezy kernel with the source package
> > > name linux-3.2. This way it would benefit from all the security backports
> > > done for wheezy-security.
> > 
> > I assume you meant just 'linux' here? There's no need to change the source 
> > package name when backporting from wheezy.
> 
> My interpretation of what Moritz said is that this would be necessary
> so we can have both the 2.6.32 derived kernel in squeeze-lts and
> a backport of the wheezy kernel. They will serve different purposes
> and should indeed coexist, which means they need different source
> package names.

True, but what Raphael wrote is also true: The source package name of
the Linux package changed between squeeze and wheezy from linux-2.6
to linux. So strictly speaking the source package name could be kept
unchanged. Still, the backport would need to ensure that linux-libc-dev
from the 3.2 package is either skipped or installed with a different
name.

Cheers,
        Moritz