Re: Branches post-wheezy
Your decision. However, as backports is now the same dak instance as the main archive, -master should be able to find a way to make this without the overhead. You mean, simply copying the testing packages into backports if their dependencies are met within stable+backports? That would be nice. Would you like to work on dak for a while? Thats not a problem of dak. Well, dependency checks would need some code, but moving from one to the other is what we do daily for testing. This would just be another suite to move from and to. The more interesting parts to tackle are - the policy of backports suites doesn't allow this. - Backports having a certain version number schema does help a lot for users to see which they have installed with a simple dpkg -l. Those are things you want to discuss with the backports team, probably using their mailinglist. When thats done and they want it, we are at debian-dak@ldo to discuss how to best do it technically. :) -- bye, Joerg 2.5 million B.C.: OOG the Open Source Caveman develops the axe and releases it under the GPL. The axe quickly gains popularity as a means of crushing moderators heads. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/87bo8v6nat@gkar.ganneff.de
Re: Branches post-wheezy
On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:03:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: There can be no more uploads to unstable for wheezy, so I propose to rename sid - wheezy for each package that currently has a sid branch. Okay. Linux 3.9 is now out, so we have a choice between 3.8.10 and 3.9 as the first upload for jessie. Maybe we could start with 3.8.10 for unstable and 3.9 for experimental? I think we should do a 3.8 upload to unstable. Lets see if I got some time to do some cleanups for 3.9. I would rather not create redundant backports packages, but I think it's inevitable that people will want them and squeeze-backports hasn't taken a whole lot of work on my part. So I intend to create wheezy-backports branches for at least linux, linux-latest and firmware-nonfree. Your decision. However, as backports is now the same dak instance as the main archive, -master should be able to find a way to make this without the overhead. Bastian -- No one wants war. -- Kirk, Errand of Mercy, stardate 3201.7 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/20130430080940.ga27...@waldi.eu.org
Re: Branches post-wheezy
Bastian Blank wa...@debian.org writes: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:03:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: There can be no more uploads to unstable for wheezy, so I propose to rename sid - wheezy for each package that currently has a sid branch. Okay. Linux 3.9 is now out, so we have a choice between 3.8.10 and 3.9 as the first upload for jessie. Maybe we could start with 3.8.10 for unstable and 3.9 for experimental? I think we should do a 3.8 upload to unstable. Lets see if I got some time to do some cleanups for 3.9. Sounds like a good plan. I'd like to merge my current multiplatform stuff in 3.9 so that the 3.9 kernel hitting unstable will have it so uploading a 3.8 in unstable goes well with that. Arnaud -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/8761z42vmu@lebrac.rtp-net.org
Re: Branches post-wheezy
On Tue, 2013-04-30 at 10:09 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: On Tue, Apr 30, 2013 at 02:03:42AM +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: There can be no more uploads to unstable for wheezy, so I propose to rename sid - wheezy for each package that currently has a sid branch. Okay. Linux 3.9 is now out, so we have a choice between 3.8.10 and 3.9 as the first upload for jessie. Maybe we could start with 3.8.10 for unstable and 3.9 for experimental? I think we should do a 3.8 upload to unstable. Lets see if I got some time to do some cleanups for 3.9. There is also the armmp introduction to do. I would rather not create redundant backports packages, but I think it's inevitable that people will want them and squeeze-backports hasn't taken a whole lot of work on my part. So I intend to create wheezy-backports branches for at least linux, linux-latest and firmware-nonfree. Your decision. However, as backports is now the same dak instance as the main archive, -master should be able to find a way to make this without the overhead. You mean, simply copying the testing packages into backports if their dependencies are met within stable+backports? That would be nice. Would you like to work on dak for a while? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Knowledge is power. France is bacon. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
