On Wed, Mar 09, 2005 at 06:15:10PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > On Thu, Mar 10, 2005 at 12:20:36AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 03:11:02PM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > On Tue, Mar 08, 2005 at 04:54:34PM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > > > > Here is the relevant section of the .changes file for the package in > > > question: > > > > Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 17:40:59 +0100 > > > Source: kernel-latest-powerpc > > > [...] > > > Changes: > > > kernel-latest-powerpc (101) unstable; urgency=low > > > . > > > * Typo in debian/control created kernel-headers-2.[46]-powerpc > > > instead of > > > kernel-headers-2.[46]. Fixing this means another wait in the NEW > > > queue :( > > > > This merely underscores the contrast between Anthony's recommendation -- > > > being resourceful enough to find a way to achieve the things you care > > > about > > > when no one is interested in helping you -- and what you've done in this > > > case -- whine that a name change on *headers* metapackages that are used > > > nowhere in the installer prevented you from improving the quality of that > > > installer. > > > It was a damn typo i oversighted in the 100 version. And the mention that > > itmeans a wait in the NEW queue was in no way a whining, but an informative > > mention to whoever would look in the svn archive for the package wondering > > why > > this problem (which marked kernel-latest-powerpc uninstallable for almost > > two > > month) was indeed solved and waiting in NEW. > > > and notice that these packages are not used on powerpc because Kamion didn't > > modify base-installer to use them, while they are used (unless i am > > mistaken) > > in the x86 case, and in general are meant to be used, which makes changing > > kernel possible without rebuilding the base-installer .udeb, and thus allows > > more flexibility. > > According to the changes file, the changes found in the version of > kernel-latest-powerpc that was stuck in NEW were *completely orthogonal* to > the use of these kernel-image metapackages could be used from within > base-installer. NEW processing has *nothing* to do with why base-installer > wasn't updated, and you are way off-base in blaming the ftpmasters for this.
Please ask Kamion about this, since he told me he couldn't make the base-installer changes because of this. Really, you have no clue, why do you speak of these things, and are not even capable to communicate with your fellow RMs ? Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
