| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
On 02.05.2012 23:01, Bryce Harrington wrote:
> Introducing 'lts-pkg-rename', a tool for doing package renames for the
> LTS point releases. (Assuming we still use the rename strategy, rather
> than pockets.)
Yeah, about that.. :)
I see huge issues ahead if we were to go the rename route:
- a partial backport would mean untested software combinations (with
pockets it's minimal cost to include the full stack)
- there will be some new protos/libs needed anyway, at least if the new
xserver is backported
- to allow upgrades to the next LTS release we'd need to add
Replaces & Breaks: '$foo-lts-backport-{quantal,rabid,squeamish,tardy}'
to the package in T. Messy..
- packages depend on libxfoo (>= bar), and since there's no way to add
versioned provides to the libxfoo-lts-backport-* -package (debian policy
7.5) the renames just won't fly
so even if we narrowed the set down to just the select few input/video
drivers + libdrm, it'd look messy. And the backported kernel might need
alsalib/pulseaudio backports, then all the above applies there too. Too
bad the session notes were really sketchy on _why_ using pockets was not
discussed more, I wasn't there to discuss this and I believe Robert
couldn't attend either. We really need a new session with all the
stakeholders present (LP/archive/foundations too), be it at UDS or
IRC/Mumble.
ps. this was not a criticism about the work you did, I just think we
should revisit the decision(?) made last UDS, at least there's still
time to think things over :)
--
timo.aaltonen@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
| Thread Previous • Date Previous • Date Next • Thread Next |
