Re: updated X drivers in etch+1/2?
On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 06:34:49PM -0700, dann frazier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 08:26:47PM -0500, David Nusinow wrote:
> > On Mon, Feb 25, 2008 at 11:01:46AM +0100, Julien Cristau wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > I've pushed a debian-etchnahalf branch of the intel driver to alioth[0],
> > > based on the current package in sid. It's not tested yet, but it should
> > > build. Another option would be to work with 2.1.0 (now in testing)
> > > instead of 2.2.1. We'll probably have a better view of the issues with
> > > 2.2.1 in a couple of weeks, as it's still pretty new.
> > > Feedback and testing are welcome.
> > >
> > > Cheers,
> > > Julien
> > >
> > > [0] git://git.debian.org/git/users/jcristau/xserver-xorg-video-intel.git
> > > http://git.debian.org/?p=users/jcristau/xserver-xorg-video-intel.git
> >
> > I noticed that you used the ~etchnahalf versioning. I haven't versioned the
> > radeonhd backport yet and it's obvious that I need to. Is there some
> > consensus on whether we should use this, or an etch designation the way
> > stable updates currently do? I'm fine with etchnahalf, although if the
> > release guys have something more offical sounding, I'm happy to use it.
>
> hey David,
> SRM have requested that all of these packages use a common string to
> help make them easily distinguishable from other stable updates.
> 'etchnhalf' is what we're using for the kernel (note that its
> 'etchnhalf' not 'etchnahalf'), so probably good for the X packages to
> use the same convention.
>
> Also, I don't think you're working on any packages that are etchnhalf
> specific, but if you are, you might consider using that in the
> packagename as well. We'll be doing that for the linux-latest
> metapackages, for example.
Great, thank you!
- David Nusinow
Reply to: