Re: Reorganizing packages
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 UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 other reason), the kernel team > doesn't have the authority to prohibit this. Yes, kernel team has no authorit to prohibit it but at same time, since there's not need for it now and neither in a near future, kernel team can also do the package renaming and ignore this possibility. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 this diversion. It's short-sighted to "agree" that we're not going to have more than one kernel source in the distro when the circumstances have not yet arisen where we have to consider what to do about a new upstream major version. 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 other reason), the kernel team doesn't have the authority to prohibit this. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 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 sarge-maintenance-problem back. >> >> No, I'm sure we don't want it; but if upstream ever changes its mind later >> about 2.6 being the one true kernel, we might still have it. > > I agree with you Steve and personally I don't see any good reason for > dropping it. After talking with "maks" at IRC I've changed my mind and now I agree on the renaming. The only good reason that I still have to keep it is due GIT tree name but I don't think it's a requirement to us to follow it. 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 this diversion. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 reverted, > >> No. We never had complete support for more than one branch. And I really >> doubt that anyone wants the sarge-maintenance-problem back. > > No, I'm sure we don't want it; but if upstream ever changes its mind later > about 2.6 being the one true kernel, we might still have it. I agree with you Steve and personally I don't see any good reason for dropping it. -- O T A V I OS A L V A D O R - E-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] UIN: 5906116 GNU/Linux User: 239058 GPG ID: 49A5F855 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br - "Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives you the whole house." -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 for more than one branch. And I really > doubt that anyone wants the sarge-maintenance-problem back. No, I'm sure we don't want it; but if upstream ever changes its mind later about 2.6 being the one true kernel, we might still have it. > > and in the meantime > > it would cause more confusion and work because of the need to shuffle the > > transition packages for users to get a smooth upgrade from etch. > The linux-image packages are already in etch. But they weren't *used* as the metapackages that users installed. We still need linux-image-2.6-foo packages in lenny for upgrade, if nothing else. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 cause more confusion and work because of the need to shuffle the > > transition packages for users to get a smooth upgrade from etch. > > Hmm, anyone heard of a planned 2.7 or 2.8 tree? My last infos where 2.6 > is being kept for the time being. yes current upstream stated plan is that there is no need for such trees. as bonus it would separate dkt bug reports. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 sarge-maintenance-problem back. > and in the meantime > it would cause more confusion and work because of the need to shuffle the > transition packages for users to get a smooth upgrade from etch. The linux-image packages are already in etch. Bastian -- You can't evaluate a man by logic alone. -- McCoy, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 > transition packages for users to get a smooth upgrade from etch. Hmm, anyone heard of a planned 2.7 or 2.8 tree? My last infos where 2.6 is being kept for the time being. Best regards Frederik Schüler -- ENOSIG signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Reorganizing packages
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: linux-image-2.6.22-1-686
> Package: linux-headers-686
> Provides: linux-headers
> Depends: linux-headers-2.6.22-1-686
> Package: unionfs-modules-686
> Provides: unionfs-modules
> Depends: unionfs-modules-2.6.22-1-686, linux-latest-modules-2.6.22-1-686
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
transition packages for users to get a smooth upgrade from etch.
The -2.6 doesn't hurt anything, I recommend leaving it as-is.
> * Drop duplicated xen identifier from xen-linux-system:
> Package: xen-linux-system-2.6.18-4-686
> Depends: linux-image-2.6.18-4-xen-686 (= ${binary:Version}),
> xen-hypervisor-3.0.3-1-i386-pae
That seems like a good improvement. It doesn't require changes to the
source package name, so is less disruptive on that front; and changes to xen
binary package names have less effect on the rest of the system (e.g., the
installer).
> * Add meta packages for xen-linux-system:
> Package: xen-linux-system-686
> Provides: xen-linux-system
> Depends: xen-linux-system-2.6.18-4-686, linux-image-686 (=
> ${binary:Version})
Also seems fair to me.
Cheers,
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Reorganizing packages
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 PROTECTED]
Reorganizing packages
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: linux-image-2.6.22-1-686
Package: linux-headers-686
Provides: linux-headers
Depends: linux-headers-2.6.22-1-686
Package: unionfs-modules-686
Provides: unionfs-modules
Depends: unionfs-modules-2.6.22-1-686, linux-latest-modules-2.6.22-1-686
* Drop duplicated xen identifier from xen-linux-system:
Package: xen-linux-system-2.6.18-4-686
Depends: linux-image-2.6.18-4-xen-686 (= ${binary:Version}),
xen-hypervisor-3.0.3-1-i386-pae
* Add meta packages for xen-linux-system:
Package: xen-linux-system-686
Provides: xen-linux-system
Depends: xen-linux-system-2.6.18-4-686, linux-image-686 (= ${binary:Version})
* Featureset infos needs to go into the short and long description, how?
Bastian
--
"Get back to your stations!"
"We're beaming down to the planet, sir."
-- Kirk and Mr. Leslie, "This Side of Paradise",
stardate 3417.3
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
