On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 09:33:51PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 08 June 2006 20:08, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Thu, Jun 08, 2006 at 07:16:57PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > > Only if we _would_ include some backports repository that is known to > > > have a current backported kernel and all other packages needed with > > > that kernel, but without random backports of other packages. And we > > > would need some guarantees about the maintenance of and procedures > > > for changes in such a repository (compare volatile.d.n). > > > > volatile.d.n is not a valid solution for this, since it doesn't allow > > for a flexible enough upload of packages > > Would you please _read_ before you reply? > I did not suggest using volatile for this. I was only saying that a > repository with such backported packages would need a similar (though > different) policy like aba and zobel formulated for volatile).
ok, but this minor mistake of mine is non-substantial, the important thing was to point out that there was already a discussion about this selfsame subject, and i pointed to it for the purpose of those who didn't follow that discussion last time. Why are you so quick to jump on me again ? > I have not seen a formal policy defined for the kernel.debian.org repos > that would make it suitable for this purpose for the d-i. You also have not seen any formal policy defined that makes it unsuitable ffor d-i. We also have not seen any formal policy of what is considered suitable for d-i, so i guess your argument is not all that useful :) Now, shall we have another 100+ flamewar about this, or are you willing to hold a constructive discussion about it ? Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
