Re: Breaks & Replaces in debian/control in backports

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



On 07/19/2015 05:28 AM, Loic Dachary wrote:

> I think it achieves the same thing and is less error prone in the case of backports. The risk is that upgrading from v0.94.2-34 to the version with this change will fail because the conditions are satisified (it thinks all versions after v0.94.2 have the change). But the odds of having a test machine with this specific version already installed are close to non-existent. The odds of us picking the wrong number and ending up with something that's either too high or too small are higher.
> 
> What do you think ?
> 

I think this is great, thanks for proposing it. We should also write our
convention down someplace (SubmittingPatches, or the wiki, or something)

- Ken
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html



[Index of Archives]     [CEPH Users]     [Ceph Large]     [Information on CEPH]     [Linux BTRFS]     [Linux USB Devel]     [Video for Linux]     [Linux Audio Users]     [Yosemite News]     [Linux Kernel]     [Linux SCSI]
  Powered by Linux