On Wed, 17 Feb 2010, sean finney wrote:
> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 09:24:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> > On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Antonin Kral wrote:
> > > Epochs as well as +reverted will definitely work but looks a bit too
> > > hackish to me.
> >
> > Epochs have been designed precisely for th
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 09:24:30AM +0100, Raphael Hertzog wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Antonin Kral wrote:
> > Epochs as well as +reverted will definitely work but looks a bit too
> > hackish to me.
>
> Epochs have been designed precisely for this. It's not hackish... but they
> are somewhat ugly
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Antonin Kral wrote:
> Epochs as well as +reverted will definitely work but looks a bit too
> hackish to me.
Epochs have been designed precisely for this. It's not hackish... but they
are somewhat ugly and some users do not understand them.
Cheers,
--
Raphaël Hertzog
Like wh
* Simon McVittie [2010-02-16 20:26] wrote:
> bug to stop it from propagating to testing automatically. In this case it'd be
> appropriate to file a bug against version 1.3.1, "mongodb: 1.3.x unsuitable
> for stable in maintainer's opinion", then close it in version 1:1.2.x
> (assuming you use epoc
On 2/16/10, Sven Joachim wrote:
> On 2010-02-16 18:55 +0100, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>
>>> all of these seem like rather complicated solutions. wouldn't it be a
>>> bit simpler to ask for removal from both testing and unstable, then once
>>> that happens, upload the old (known stable) version of th
On 2010-02-16 18:55 +0100, Michael Gilbert wrote:
>> all of these seem like rather complicated solutions. wouldn't it be a
>> bit simpler to ask for removal from both testing and unstable, then once
>> that happens, upload the old (known stable) version of the package?
>
> oh, you would probably
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 12:52:34 -0500 Michael Gilbert wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:23:39 +0100 Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
>
> > On 16/02/2010 17:04, Antonin Kral wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > I am looking for some advise / opinions. I am working with guys from
> > > MongoDB project to get
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:23:39 +0100 Jean-Christophe Dubacq wrote:
> On 16/02/2010 17:04, Antonin Kral wrote:
> > Hi all,
> >
> > I am looking for some advise / opinions. I am working with guys from
> > MongoDB project to get stable package in Debian. We have currently
> > version 1.3.1 in unstable
On 16/02/2010 17:04, Antonin Kral wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> I am looking for some advise / opinions. I am working with guys from
> MongoDB project to get stable package in Debian. We have currently
> version 1.3.1 in unstable, this is considered as development branch
> which is not very stable.
>
> Is
hi,
On Tue, Feb 16, 2010 at 12:10:16PM -0500, Asheesh Laroia wrote:
> You could use epochs to make the old version have a newer version
> number according to dpkg. I don't know how distasteful that is,
> though.
it also might be a bit disruptive for those who have already installed
the newer vers
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 at 17:04:17 +0100, Antonin Kral wrote:
> We have currently
> version 1.3.1 in unstable, this is considered as development branch
> which is not very stable.
If you consider one of your packages to be unsuitable for a stable release,
you should ensure that it has a release criti
On Tue, 16 Feb 2010, Antonin Kral wrote:
Hi all,
I am looking for some advise / opinions. I am working with guys from
MongoDB project to get stable package in Debian. We have currently
version 1.3.1 in unstable, this is considered as development branch
which is not very stable.
Is there an
Hi all,
I am looking for some advise / opinions. I am working with guys from
MongoDB project to get stable package in Debian. We have currently
version 1.3.1 in unstable, this is considered as development branch
which is not very stable.
Is there any way how to reasonably push older version (1.2.
13 matches
Mail list logo
