(Jumping into the conversation because I've been bitten by this
too.)
> > - don't put too much version information into the name of the
> >"real" kernel package, and use the debian version number
> >instead
>
> No, the binary package names must change for every ABI change, just as
> for
On 09/28/09 04:04, Ben Hutchings wrote:
The separation between linux-2.6 and linux-latest-2.6 allows for a later
kernel version to be added to a suite without replacing the previous
one, as with 2.6.24 added in etch-and-1/2. Neither of these options can
achieve that.
I understand how this is
On Sat, 2009-09-26 at 16:06 +0200, Harald Dunkel wrote:
> Package: linux-latest-2.6
> Version: 2.6.30+20
> Severity: wishlist
>
> linux-image-amd64 and linux-image-2.6-amd64 seem to be pretty
> fragile. Every other day their dependency to the "real" kernel
> package is broken, because the kernel h
Package: linux-latest-2.6
Version: 2.6.30+20
Severity: wishlist
linux-image-amd64 and linux-image-2.6-amd64 seem to be pretty
fragile. Every other day their dependency to the "real" kernel
package is broken, because the kernel has been updated and
linux-latest-2.6 is not in sync.
Do you think it
4 matches
Mail list logo
