Hi Debian kernel maintainers,
I have a question regarding the way kernel versions are selected for the
stable tree. First, I am a very long Debian user and have been building
my own kernel for years, managing self signed kernel and modules for
secure boot and my Debian version is always a unstable/experimental mix.
I used to stick to LTS kernel releases only and when a new LTS kernel
was mature enough switched to it (e.g 5.15 -> 6.1). Inside a given
release I pick up the last version regularly (e.g 6.1.43 at time of
writing).
But with the growing complexity of features required by user space
(cgroup/namespace, ...), I have switched to use debian kernel for non
critical machines.
But in unstable/experimental you find usually non LTS kernels with very
early number in the series which is fine as long as they correctly work
which has not been the case for several 6.3 and 6.4 kernel where part of
the hardware was faulty due to upstream bugs (not Debian).
So I have reverted to 6.1.x release for many machines and put the
package on hold.
apt-cache policy linux-image-amd64
linux-image-amd64:
Installé : 6.1.38-2
Candidat : 6.4.4-2
Table de version :
6.4.4-2 500
500 http://ftp.fr.debian.org/debian unstable/main amd64 Packages
*** 6.1.38-2 500
500 http://security.debian.org/debian-security
bookworm-security/main amd64 Packages
100 /var/lib/dpkg/status
Two days ago, I was a bit surprised to see that only 6.1.38-2 was pushed
to correct zenbleed while at least 6.1.41 was available for a week or so
and we are now at 6.1.43.
So my questions are:
- Why did you not pick up the last LTS version?
- On what occasion do you pick up a new LTS kernel for the
stable branch? Is there any formal rule?
No criticism just curious : I can always pick up the Debian kernel, the
Debian config, slightly modify it for the kernel signature and sign the
produced kernel and modules. Just that given the handful of modules I do
not need, this is time consuming and I find myself out of normal Debian
path.
Regards,
