Pkg xen devel - Apr 2006 - Bug#362026: RM: xen -- obsolete, new splited xen packages upcoming

Package: ftp.debian.org
Severity: normal

Hello,

Please consider removing xen.
New xen-3.0 splited packages are upcoming, making this one obsolete.

Cheers,
-- 
Julien Danjou
// <julien@danjou.info>     http://julien.danjou.info
// 9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974  C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD
// The more we fly, the more we climb, the more we know that heaven is a lie.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20060411/9d6e5159/attachment-0002.pgp

On Wed, Apr 12, 2006 at 12:00:18PM +0200, Jeroen van Wolffelaar
wrote:
> Erm, why don't you upload with 'xen' instead of
'xen-3.0'? This will
> also make upgrades easier. Since you don't want to support both xen
> versions at the same time, I see no reason for this source and binary
> package rename?
Because we do plan to package and support several major releases of Xen
at the same time.
Furthermore, upgrade from Xen 2 is not possible. This has been discussed
_a lot_ on the Xen Debian mailing list.

Cheers,
-- 
Julien Danjou
.''`.  Debian Developer
: :' : http://julien.danjou.info
`. `'  http://people.debian.org/~acid
  `-   9A0D 5FD9 EB42 22F6 8974  C95C A462 B51E C2FE E5CD
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 189 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url :
http://lists.alioth.debian.org/pipermail/pkg-xen-devel/attachments/20060412/288395ea/attachment.pgp

On Tue, Apr 11, 2006 at 10:34:48PM +0200, Julien Danjou
wrote:
> Package: ftp.debian.org
> Severity: normal
> 
> Hello,
> 
> Please consider removing xen.
> New xen-3.0 splited packages are upcoming, making this one obsolete.
Erm, why don't you upload with 'xen' instead of 'xen-3.0'?
This will
also make upgrades easier. Since you don't want to support both xen
versions at the same time, I see no reason for this source and binary
package rename?

Seems to me like a gratuitous package rename.

--Jeroen

-- 
Jeroen van Wolffelaar
Jeroen@wolffelaar.nl (also for Jabber & MSN; ICQ: 33944357)
http://Jeroen.A-Eskwadraat.nl