dann frazier wrote: > On Fri, Dec 21, 2007 at 08:59:24PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: >> * dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [071221 18:07]: >>> If using p-u gives us no reasonable way to back out, then its not the >>> right answer. >> Actually, if we do something that doesn't give us a reasonable way to >> back out, I think we have missed our goals from etch+.5 - IIRC we wanted >> the new kernel set to be an addition. That means to me that we need to >> be able to take it away (plus perhaps a few additional helpers), and the >> rest of the system is unchanged. Or is there a flaw in these thoughts? > > That's the way I see it as well - these should be all new packages or > modifications to existing packages that we consider safe for etch. > > The question I have is whether or not we can use proposed-updates to > stage etch 1/2, but still have the ability to do point releases that > omit the new etch 1/2 packages. I'm not really sure what magic happens > between p-u and a point release, so I don't know if this is feasible.
It's technically possible to stage etch.5 via proposed-updates and release it as a point release without interfering much with the possibility to do point releases without the etch.5 specific packages. Though personally I would only want to do it this way if we communicate very clearly in a wide range of media that we will be doing something like an etch.5 so that users are not more confused than they are now when there is a point release and know very well in advance if they want/should be using etch.5 or not. Cheers Luk -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
