On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 11:39:16PM +0200, Frederik Schueler wrote: > Hello, > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 11:29:32AM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > Is the plan to do a "linux-2.6.16" upload at the same time, or does > > this imply a decision to use >= 2.6.17 in etch? > > We have not yet decided about what to use for etch. There has not been > any more commitment towards a long-term support for 2.6.16 on LKML, but > maybe the last word is not spoken here yet. Anyone who knows more about > it? > > Here two proposals on how to go on, satisfying the need of a stable > 2.6.16 for testing and the need of 2.6.17 for the architectures broken > in 2.6.16 (at least sparc, mipsel): > > 1. we upload 2 source packages: linux-2.6.16 version 2.6.16-15 and > linux-2.6 version 2.6.17-1. This will allow us to upload 2.6.17 ASAP, > and to continue 2.6.16 support until the etch release kernel decision is > made. > > 2. we upload linux-2.6 2.6.16-15 on Monday with urgency=high and have it > added to testing ASAP, and upload linux-2.6.17-1 on Friday (5 days > later), probably with XEN images in place, and one round of NEW less. > With this option, taking care of 2.6.16 in testing could be done through > t-p-u uploads. > > > I personally would like to follow option #1: We could backport > sparc/niagara and smp-alt support if 2.6.16 gets long-term support, we > would have a stable kernel for etch until 2.6.17 stabilizes, and we had > enough time to decide which kernel to release with.
What about : We upload linux-2.6 2.6.17 ASAP, and if 2.6.16 is finally the way to go, we upload linux-2.6.16 or linux-2.6.etch, and propagate this one to testing. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
