On Wed, 8 Sep 2010 20:30:21 +0200, Julien Cristau wrote: > On Wed, Sep 8, 2010 at 14:15:26 -0400, Michael Gilbert wrote: > > > As for the need for pinning, that can be solved by judiciously choosing > > package names. The current instructions say to append '~bpo' to all > > packages, which makes backport versions older than stable versions. For > > chromium and other fast-moving packages that should stay up to date, the > > instructions could say to use '+bpo' which would make that a newer > > version than stable. > > > > Again, it should be up to the ftpmaster to review and OK (via request) > > all '+bpo' uploads due to the risk of breakage on automatic updates. > > Combine this solution with disabling 'NotAutomatic', and I think all of > > the concerns are addressed. Thoughts? > > > That makes absolutely no sense. Package names and package version > numbers are not the same thing. And backports already have higher > versions than stable, that's kind of the whole point.
Right. It would require backport uploads to have versions something like <stable version>+bpo-<testing version> for stuff that should automatically update and <stable version>~bpo-<testing version>, but that's just messy. Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: http://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
