Re: updated X drivers in etch+1/2?

[dann frazier <dannf@debian.org>]

On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:26:47PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:01:46AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > I've pushed a debian-etchnahalf branch of the intel driver to alioth[0],
> > based on the current package in sid.  It's not tested yet, but it should
> > build.  Another option would be to work with 2.1.0 (now in testing)
> > instead of 2.2.1.  We'll probably have a better view of the issues with
> > 2.2.1 in a couple of weeks, as it's still pretty new.
> > Feedback and testing are welcome.
> > 
> > Cheers,
> > Julien
> > 
> > [0] git://git.debian.org/git/users/jcristau/xserver-xorg-video-intel.git
> >     http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jcristau/xserver-xorg-video-intel.git
> 
> I noticed that you used the ~etchnahalf versioning. I haven't versioned the
> radeonhd backport yet and it's obvious that I need to. Is there some
> consensus on whether we should use this, or an etch designation the way
> stable updates currently do? I'm fine with etchnahalf, although if the
> release guys have something more offical sounding, I'm happy to use it.

hey David,
 SRM have requested that all of these packages use a common string to
help make them easily distinguishable from other stable updates.
'etchnhalf' is what we're using for the kernel (note that its
'etchnhalf' not 'etchnahalf'), so probably good for the X packages to
use the same convention.

 Also, I don't think you're working on any packages that are etchnhalf
specific, but if you are, you might consider using that in the
packagename as well. We'll be doing that for the linux-latest
metapackages, for example.

-- 
dann frazier