On Thu, Mar 31, 2005 at 12:08:18AM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Wed, Mar 30, 2005 at 11:55:27AM -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > > On Wed, 30 Mar 2005, Horms wrote: > > > > It is much more user-friendly, and it readly provides information on the > > > > most up-to-date tree it was synced with, in aptitude/dselect/synaptic... > > > > > > Yes, but the problem is that each time it changes backages > > > have to go through a NEW cycle. > > > > I assume you mean for the binary packages? I was only paying attention to > > the kernel-source, kernel-patch and kernel-tree packages... > > To follow the current naming convention, I believe that they > all would have to go through new, and also would not be > an upgrade path, but a fresh install for users.
No, the packages would still be kernel-*-2.6.11, but the version number would be 2.6.11.6-<debianversion>, yiedling stuff like : kernel-source-2.6.11_2.6.11.6-1_all.deb Which is ok, and doesn't trigger NEW. I vote for that. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
