On Thu, Dec 28, 2006 at 04:00:53AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Sat, Dec 23, 2006 at 08:03:29PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > * Noah Meyerhans ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [061218 19:41]: > > > Our options would seem to be to revise the release notes > > > to no longer suggest upgrading aptitude before dist-upgrade, or > > > including an initrd-tools package that doesn't conflict with current > > > libc6. I believe we should include an initrd-tools package, even if > > > it is just a dummy package, to provide for a smooth upgrade path. > > > I doubt that a dummy package is better, I think it is even worse because > > it will lull people into security where there is none. > > > Basically, initrd-tools has been removed because it maintainers asked > > for removal from testing plus unstable. > > > If I understand it correct, someone could take over a package where the > > maintainers asked for removal (well, basically it is orphaned with the > > "please remove foo now") - and if the then-current maintainer ask to let > > the initrd-tools back to testing, I don't see why we should refuse this. > > (Of course, my understanding could be wrong.) > > If initrd-tools needs to be kept around for etch for an upgrade path, I'm > willing to do the minimum of work necessary to support this. The reason it > was removed from testing in the first place is that it had an RC bug filed > against it that no one thought was worth the effort of investigating.
agreed. > I'll prepare an upload to fix 395181. no need we'll handle that. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
