On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:08:47PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
* Featureset infos needs to go into the short and long description, how?
No ideas?
Bastian
--
Where there's no emotion, there's no motive for violence.
-- Spock, Dagger of the Mind, stardate 2715.1
--
To
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
For that matter, if someone in the project decides that they have need for a
different kernel than the one the kernel team wants to ship (for a
particular port, or to support older hardware, or to support a newer
cutting-edge kernel design, or for some
On Tue, 21 Aug 2007, Bastian Blank wrote:
* Rename linux(-[-a-z]+|)-2.6 into linux\1.
* Drop the 2.6 version identifier from meta packages:
cool
thanks for picking that up :)
--
maks
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL
On Tue, Aug 21, 2007 at 07:08:47PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
Hi folks
* Rename linux(-[-a-z]+|)-2.6 into linux\1.
* Drop the 2.6 version identifier from meta packages:
Package: linux-image-686
Provides: linux-image, linux-latest-modules-2.6.22-1-686
Depends:
Hello,
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I object; if and when there ever is a new upstream kernel branch that we
want to track separately this would have to be reverted, and in the meantime
it would cause more confusion and work because of the need to shuffle the
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I object; if and when there ever is a new upstream kernel branch that we
want to track separately this would have to be reverted,
No. We never had complete support for more than one branch. And I really
doubt that anyone wants the
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:07:23PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I object; if and when there ever is a new upstream kernel branch that we
want to track separately this would have to be reverted, and in the meantime
it would
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:21:18PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I object; if and when there ever is a new upstream kernel branch that we
want to track separately this would have to be reverted,
No. We never had complete support
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:21:18PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I object; if and when there ever is a new upstream kernel branch that we
want to track separately this would have to be
Otavio Salvador [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:21:18PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 02:11:48AM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
I object; if and when there ever is a new upstream kernel branch that we
want
On Wed, Aug 22, 2007 at 10:49:30PM -0300, Otavio Salvador wrote:
experimental might be used if we had a linux-2.7 or something while
it's not OK for sid and Maks and Bastian agree that we're not going to
have more the one kernel source on the distro anymore so there's no
more need to allow
11 matches
Mail list logo
