On Tue, Jul 12, 2005 at 09:47:49AM +0300, dann frazier wrote: > On Tue, 2005-07-12 at 04:49 +0200, Goswin von Brederlow wrote: > > dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > Note that one side-effect of dropping the minor number in the source > > > package name is that we won't be able to have one kernel in sid and one > > > in testing and be able to use sid as an update path. For example, > > > consider the way we had 2.6.10 in sid and 2.6.8 in testing late in > > > sarge. This allowed us to get some testing on a kernel and make a more > > > informed decision about which one we froze on for sarge. We can of > > > course use experimental for this, but we can't expect to get much > > > testing w/ experimental. > > > > Why not? Both testing and sid can have different versions of > > kernel-source-2.6 without problems. One just havs to report a RC bug > > against kernel-source-2.6 in sid to prevent it entering testing. > > As a hypothetical example, say linux-2.6 (2.6.12-X) is in testing, and > its currently what we plan to ship in the next release. 2.6.14 is the > latest upstream. What should we keep in sid?
If it is late in the release process, we use testing-proposed-updates for 2.6.12 uploads. That is what it is for, and i suppose it is now finally fixed. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
