On Sun, 10 Jul 2005, Andres Salomon wrote: > > I'm going to suggest renaming our 2.6.12 source package from > linux-kernel-2.6.12 to linux-kernel-2.6. Thoughts? Dann Frazier and I > have discussed this on IRC a little bit, and come up w/ the following > points.. > > * Source: linux-kernel-2.6, Version: 2.6.12-1 why not linux-2.6? that matches upstream name.
> * As long as each arch is in synch, there are no GPL issues with older > binary packages being in the archive w/out the source. > * Nicer for bugs; http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linux-kernel-2.6.html > gets us all bugs for 2.6.12+ kernels, versus having to look at > linux-kernel-2.6.12.html, linux-kernel-2.6.13.html, etc. indeed current bts interface for the kernel *debs is confusing. > * Older kernels get removed; no need to ask for manual removal of > linux-kernel-2.6.12 after 2.6.13 becomes available for all archs. > However, we lose the ability to have multiple 2.6's in a release, > which sounds like a win to me; we shouldn't be doing multiple 2.6 > releases anymore anyways, the security team has made it clear they > don't want to support multiple kernels, and it would be extra pressure > for all archs to keep up. there is still snapshot.d.o for unhappy testers. > * Testing would contain the latest kernel that built for all archs > (archs that build out of the linux-kernel-2.6 package, anyways), while > sid would contain the latest bleeding edge kernel which may or may not > FTBFS for some archs. In order to get the new kernel into testing, > we'd have to either fix these issues or discuss dropping archs (which > we're going to have to do anyways w/ single-source packaging). > -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
