On Mon, Feb 7, 2011 at 5:09 PM, Julien Cristau wrote: > What does that buy us? It means instead of dealing with bugs on an > ongoing basis, you get them all at the same time and get to bisect along > many kernel versions at once instead of just one. It means problems > don't get reported (and fixed) upstream until it's too late. It means > any package that could use a newer kernel interface doesn't get any > testing. I'm sure there's plenty of others.
Bugs can be submitted and dealt with in experimental just as well as in unstable. >> > Whatever the technical solution to testing-security kernel might be, >> > it needs to be based on following the upstream kernel development. >> >> 2.6.32.x is in fact an upstream kernel currently being developed ;) >> > No it's not. Go read the definition of development. > > I'm sorry, but your proposal is insane. Is this kind of negativity really necessary? I'm trying to guide a discussion on a real problem, and I'm an engineer, so I never present problems without at least an idea about a solution. It may not be the best, but you start at something and work toward bettering it until you have something good. Best wishes, Mike -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-kernel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/AANLkTimiCaXv+Yhgg=UW7=1miK-Y5=aLwp9=psvh1...@mail.gmail.com
