* Steinar H. Gunderson [Tue, 03 Jan 2006 23:34:26 +0100]:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:45:16PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > 2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing (i.e. SATA just
> > starting to get implemented).
> The real question (IMHO) is probably whether it would be possible to get
> newer kernels into volatile. I'd guess "probably not", given that stuff like
> udev tends to break every other release, but it's a tempting thought -- the
> sarge machine here seems to run miles better with a 2.6.14 backport (yay for
> backports.org) than it ever did with 2.6.8 (which seems to have a really
> really unstable USB layer).
There was a bit discussion about this on d-volatile last week
(starting at [1]). I think a fair summary of the discussion is:
- from the volatile side of things, Andreas Barth expressed that it
was probably best to pick one >= 2.6.12 version, stick to it as
the "newer kernel for sarge until etch releases", and manage to
get security support for it.
- from the kernel side of things, Sven Luther raised his concerns
about the uninteresting scenario that for the kernel team would be
to maintain yet _another_ kernel tree, and proposed to track in
volatile the kernels from etch, instead of creating a separate
tree for stable-newer-kernel.
[1] http://lists.debian.org/debian-volatile/2005/12/msg00025.html
Given that backports.org seems to successfully track kernels on sid
already (as per Steinar's comment), and given that I've heard Frans
Pop mention the possibility of a sarge d-i update using 2.6.12,
perhaps volatile could be the place for security updates for the
kernel of such d-i update (if one happens, and if they canl't be place
if the official archive, that is).
Cheers,
--
Adeodato Simó dato at net.com.org.es
Debian Developer adeodato at debian.org
Listening to: Javier Álvarez - ¡Ay, Maricruz!
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
