On Fri, Aug 12, 2005 at 04:09:29PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * Horms ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [050811 23:46]: > > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:56:00AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > > The latter, according to volatile policy (... must be autobuildable > > > > from the same release...). > > > Is that part of the policy intended preclude providing an update to > > kernel-package (or any other tool) that might be needed? It would > > be good to clarify that. > > Technically, we consider sarge+sarge/security+sarge/volatile as the > release we build volatile packages in. However, as build-depending on a > newer version is _also_ a packaging change, there needs to be a really > good reason for that (as for any packaging change).
Thanks for the clarification. > > Another solution I thought of would be to bundle kernel-package inside > > linux-2.6 (for volatile/sarge) somewhere. Though I am not sure > > how much surgery would be required to relocate kernel-package. > > Well, that's obviously worse. Perhaps. It turns out in this case that the change required is quite small. So we could just carry that change inside the linux-2.6 package for volatile, rather than include it in a build-depending update. Though the feeling I got from Svenl, which I agree with, is that the latter is prefered. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
