On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:30:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > (adding d-kernel and d-release) > > On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > Frans Pop <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > On Thursday 03 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > > >> > please hint linux-2.6 2.6.25-6, linux-kbuild-2.6 2.6.25-2, > > >> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 2.6.25-5 > > >> > > >> Please wait few more days until we get it properly done on sid (d-i > > >> migrates to it). > > > > > > Why? We have never blocked migration of a new kernel when that wasn't > > > needed because of a D-I release. Uploading udebs and switching to a > > > kernel is not dependant on the migration. A new kernel can basically > > > migrate (from a D-I PoV) as soon as a release is out. > > > > Except that kernel team wants it to upload 2.6.26 to sid when it's > > released (probably this week) > > OK, then _that_ should be discussed, not the migration to testing. The two > are completely separate issues. > > In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for the > kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable updates. > > There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit > longer, but "D-I has not yet converted to it" is NOT one of them.
testing users are currently on an unsupported kernel. > A much more important argument is that .25 has seen and will almost > certainly continue to get a lot more stabilization effort upstream than > is "normal" for upstream kernel releases because long term releases for > at least two important other distros are based on it. I doubt .26 will > get the same upstream attention. > Given the lack of capacity in Debian to do any real stabilization (cherry > picking/backporting of fixes from later releases) ourselves, that could > IMO be an important consideration for staying with .25 for Lenny. that doesn't matter a lot, if you look into our 2.6.18 or the RH patch biest you'll notice the RH men force boot behind their backporting machine. > .26 also includes at least one change I know of that is somewhat risky: > PAT support for x86 (which could be disabled). disabled. > Se IMO we should take a real good look at .25 and .26 and check what's > new, what's important for Lenny and what's risky, and maybe check if some > things we do want could be backported. > > Delaying the upload of .26 to unstable could give us time, as a > distribution, to stay up to date with .25, see how things are going > with .26 and make a more informed decision. > > However, if the kernel team (together with maybe the release team) has > already decided on .26 for Lenny, then it would be better to get it into > unstable ASAP and for D-I to basically skip .25. .26 is the release kernel. so i'm happy with push on it. .25 is a possible backup. -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
