Re: sarge3 kernel build & r3
On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> On Thursday 08 June 2006 20:08, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 07:16:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> > > Only if we _would_ include some backports repository that is known to
> > > have a current backported kernel and all other packages needed with
> > > that kernel, but without random backports of other packages. And we
> > > would need some guarantees about the maintenance of and procedures
> > > for changes in such a repository (compare volatile.d.n).
> >
> > volatile.d.n is not a valid solution for this, since it doesn't allow
> > for a flexible enough upload of packages
>
> Would you please _read_ before you reply?
> I did not suggest using volatile for this. I was only saying that a
> repository with such backported packages would need a similar (though
> different) policy like aba and zobel formulated for volatile).
ok, but this minor mistake of mine is non-substantial, the important thing was
to point out that there was already a discussion about this selfsame subject,
and i pointed to it for the purpose of those who didn't follow that discussion
last time. Why are you so quick to jump on me again ?
> I have not seen a formal policy defined for the kernel.debian.org repos
> that would make it suitable for this purpose for the d-i.
You also have not seen any formal policy defined that makes it unsuitable ffor
d-i. We also have not seen any formal policy of what is considered suitable
for d-i, so i guess your argument is not all that useful :)
Now, shall we have another 100+ flamewar about this, or are you willing to
hold a constructive discussion about it ?
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: