On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 06:34:49PM -0700, dann frazier wrote: > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:26:47PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote: > > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:01:46AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > I've pushed a debian-etchnahalf branch of the intel driver to alioth[0], > > > based on the current package in sid. It's not tested yet, but it should > > > build. Another option would be to work with 2.1.0 (now in testing) > > > instead of 2.2.1. We'll probably have a better view of the issues with > > > 2.2.1 in a couple of weeks, as it's still pretty new. > > > Feedback and testing are welcome. > > > > > > Cheers, > > > Julien > > > > > > [0] git://git.debian.org/git/users/jcristau/xserver-xorg-video-intel.git > > > http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jcristau/xserver-xorg-video-intel.git > > > > I noticed that you used the ~etchnahalf versioning. I haven't versioned the > > radeonhd backport yet and it's obvious that I need to. Is there some > > consensus on whether we should use this, or an etch designation the way > > stable updates currently do? I'm fine with etchnahalf, although if the > > release guys have something more offical sounding, I'm happy to use it. > > hey David, > SRM have requested that all of these packages use a common string to > help make them easily distinguishable from other stable updates. > 'etchnhalf' is what we're using for the kernel (note that its > 'etchnhalf' not 'etchnahalf'), so probably good for the X packages to > use the same convention. > > Also, I don't think you're working on any packages that are etchnhalf > specific, but if you are, you might consider using that in the > packagename as well. We'll be doing that for the linux-latest > metapackages, for example.
Great, thank you! - David Nusinow -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
