On Tue, Feb 13, 2007 at 03:27:45PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote: > On Tuesday 13 February 2007 08:50, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I'm sorry that you misunderstood. That kernel was supposed to be the > > final ABI, not the final kernel version.
> Well, I understood it to be the final kernel as well. That is why I > started preparations for RC2. > I agree with Christian. I'm getting solidly fed up with the lack of > progress from the kernel team and find it demotivating as hell. > As I've said on IRC, IMO D-I RC2 should be released with the final > _kernel_ if at all possible, not just the final kernel _ABI_. There are good reasons for wanting the d-i kernel to be as close to the shipped kernel as possible, but there are also good reasons for this to not be a hard requirement -- such as a last-minute security update that isn't relevant to the installer. The need for GPL compliance in the face of version skew between the kernel debs and the installer were a major reason why, *pre-sarge*, the kernel packages had support added for rolling back to any previous Debian patchlevel. I've just verified that yes, this code is still present in the current linux-2.6 package: if you install linux-source-2.6.18, you will get a linux-patch/usr/src/kernel-patches/all/2.6.18/apply/debian script that lets you specify, with a -R option, the exact patchlevel you want to recreate, so that reproducing previous versions of the linux-2.6 tree is as trivial as possible. So while we certainly want d-i RC2 to be based on linux-2.6 -11 rather than -10 due to pending RC bugfixes, this doesn't rule out the possibility of a linux-2.6 -12 being included in etch without a subsequent d-i rebuild for etch r0. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
