On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 11:02:29AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 10:15:45AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > On Wed, May 10, 2006 at 07:46:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > - branch the current linux-2.6 package into a new source package, say > > > > linux-2.6.16, tracking 2.6.16.x releases > > > Sounds the right thing to do for me. We keep linux-2.6 as trunk package, > > > and > > > can branch off any number of kernel we want to have around long term, and > > > mark > > > it as linux-2.6.<x>. Problem is with the metapackages, where will they > > > come > > > from ? Bastian, can you comment on this ? > > > > Currently they are built from linux-2.6. This needs to be changed for > > such a package. And after that, they need to be reintroduced through > > t-p-u. > > Well, this means thought that they will no more be built with linux-2.6, right > ? > > Why do you need to involve t-p-u, the current version in testing points to the > linux-2.6 2.6.16-<something> which is compatible with the new packages. We > just upload linux-2.6.16 to unstable and linux-2.6 without the metapackages, > and they should migrate to testing normally or with an RM hint at the right > moment, no ?
The problem Bastian maybe seeing is that we cannot have the same binary package (e.g., linux-image-2.6-686) provided by two different source packages in a single dist. So, we'd need to remove them from linux-2.6.16 till linux-2.6.16 hits testing, drop linux-2.6.16 from sid, then re-add via t-p-u. Bastian: please correct me if I missed your point. -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
