I have been following the discussion and just want to add some things from a user's point of view:
1. I appreciate the additional functionality and included bug fixes of the Debian kernels, but in the end I often have to use the vanilla kernel, because most patches - like grsecurity - don't apply otherwise. 2. In the past, there was a problem with security fixes regarding the linux kernel and stable distribution (woody). Only recently the security team started to backport security fixes for the kernel versions included in stable. Additionally, for most modern hardware a more recent kernel release is needed. Thus I need to fetch newer kernel releases from unstable or from kernel.org (and hope that they will work with woody), and I have to look for security issues by myself. Thus, while I really like the "stability" of woody, I frequently need kernel updates. This means that the kernel packages don't really fit into Debian's concept of "stable" and "unstable". As a user, I really would prefer a second set of current kernel-sources and kernel-images that can be used to update a woody system and that promises the same level of stability as woody does in general. These kernels should thus be tested with woody and only include the vanilla kernels plus important bugfixes, but no additional features. Sebastian
