Re: Announcing powerpc backport 2.6.12-6 kernel package for sarge
> On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 07:35:48AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Sep 14, 2005 at 11:18:14AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 11:34:13AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Sep 13, 2005 at 05:51:18PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > > > > http://packages.vergenet.net/testing/linux-2.6/
> > > > >
> > > > > I have done a second build, with the following changes, as 2.6.12-5.99.sarge2
> > > > > Only the first change is relevant, URL as immediately above :)
> > > > >
> > > > > * Change kernel-source build dependancy to
> > > > > kernel-package (>= 8.135) [!powerpc] | kernel-package (>= 8.135.sarge1) [powerpc]
> > > > > so that this package can be build on an unmodified sarge install
> > > > > on non-powerpc
> > > > > * Add myself and Sven Luther as uploaders
> > > >
> > > > Maybe we should move that stuff to the SVN, under dists/sarge/backports or
> > > > something such ?
> > >
> > > Yes, i think that would be an excellent idea.
> > > perhaps just put it in dists/sarge, or if you want
> > > to make a distinction, dists/sarge-backports
> > Debian-sarge is fine, what about uploading those to sarge-proposed-updates ?
> > Not sure if that one is auto-built, or even easily accessible from the user
> > stand-point.
> > Maybe this is one of the things we need to discuss in oldenbourg with Joey ?
> Good idea, though at this stage it seems unlikely that I will make it
Bad idea, actually, because sarge-p-u is supposed to hold potential
sarge updates and a backport doesn't meet the criteria for that.
(Herbert did the same in woody-p-u with 2.4 backports, they had to be
removed before sarge at the price of some user confusion who had t-p-u
in their sources.list.)