Hi Holger, thanks for raising this important issue and sorry for being slow to reply.
I think that I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, so I won't reiterate that here. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to clarify my position with regards to 2.4 in Etch. When I first became involved with debian-kernel, leading up to Sarge, my main interest was in making sure that 2.4 was in good shape. This is because at that time I felt that there was a very strong audience for it, and that it was essential for Sarge's success. As many people had already shifted their focus to 2.6 I felt there was a bit of a vacuum, and I was happy to fill it. However, leading up to Etch, as we now are, I really feel that for the various reasons you listed, the support burden of 2.4 in Etch is heavier than its benefit. So, except for architectures that absolutely must have it, we should drop 2.4. I believe 2.2 was in Sarge for some architectures, and probably will also have it for Etch. So this idea is by no means new. To be quite honest, when people like Ted T'so advise me that 2.4 isn't really viable for Etch, I tend to take notice. If, the release maintainers decide that we really must keep 2.4, then moving forward to 2.4.3X with the new unified packaging that is seen in current linux-2.6 packages is the next best option. Holger, I guess that responsibility would fall on your shoulders for now, as I unfortunately do not have the time to devote to it. Hopefully some more volunteers can be found. Failing that, keep updating 2.4.27, as we already are for Sarge security, and include that. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
