Re: chromium not in Squeeze: a bit of communication needed?
On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:30:21 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote:
> On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 14:15:26 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>
> > As for the need for pinning, that can be solved by judiciously choosing
> > package names. The current instructions say to append '~bpo' to all
> > packages, which makes backport versions older than stable versions. For
> > chromium and other fast-moving packages that should stay up to date, the
> > instructions could say to use '+bpo' which would make that a newer
> > version than stable.
> >
> > Again, it should be up to the ftpmaster to review and OK (via request)
> > all '+bpo' uploads due to the risk of breakage on automatic updates.
> > Combine this solution with disabling 'NotAutomatic', and I think all of
> > the concerns are addressed. Thoughts?
> >
> That makes absolutely no sense. Package names and package version
> numbers are not the same thing. And backports already have higher
> versions than stable, that's kind of the whole point.
Right. It would require backport uploads to have versions something
like <stable version>+bpo-<testing version> for stuff that should
automatically update and <stable version>~bpo-<testing version>, but
that's just messy.
Mike
Reply to: