On Sat, 2010-09-04 at 16:44 +0200, Andreas Beckmann wrote: > On 2010-09-04 03:16, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > Yes, this is a serious issue - we are still seeing new bug reports on > > the obsolete 2.6.32-trunk kernel packages, and this seems to be the > > reason. > > But knowing these issues, was it really neccessary to reintroduce > packages with a "trunk" abiversion? (*-2.6.35-trunk-* in experimental?) > Wouldn't something like "0trunk" trivially sort before (i.e. older than) > "1"?
We never set a stable ABI number in uploads to experimental, so this isn't a problem. (The first 2.6.32-trunk upload was intended to go to experimental too.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part
