On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 10:37:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > * dann frazier ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060619 20:51]: > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:56:50PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote: > > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 04:10:30PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > > > The only technical issue is getting the meta packages to play well. I > > > > think rough consensus was to leave the metapackages as-is in > > > > linux-2.6.16 and either 1) drop meta packages from linux-2.6 >= 2.6.17 > > > > or 2) create separate metapackages for linux-2.6 > > > > (linux-image-2.6-686-sid, > > > > for example). > > > > > > AFAIK the plan is the following: > > > - linux-2.6 remains the metapackages, the point to the last available > > > one. > > > - linux-2.6.16 contains no metapackages. > > > - linux-latest-2.6 or so contains the metapackages to match linux-2.6.16 > > > and have to go through t-p-u. > > > > fwiw, this doesn't provide a way for people to track the proposed etch > > kernel in sid, which may reduce the number of testers of that kernel > > prior to migration. > > Agreed. > > I think there should be agreement on which meta packages point to where > before bumping meta packages version numbers, and we should find a way > that encourages as many people as possible in both etch and unstable to > test etch kernels.
yes and that is let people install the 2.6.17 kernel. 2.6.17 is still heavily considered as etch target. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
