On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 06:11:24PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote: >On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:01:10PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: >> I still wonder if a fork of the last linux:src=4.4, updated to bring >> it to linux-4.4.14 would be a lower support burden? I'm still finding >> that there are a fair number of issues reported with 4.5.x and 4.6.x >> on various mailing lists. Does anyone know how Skylake support is >> like for the 4.4.x branch? What is arm64 support like? I've >> corresponded with Ben Hutchings, and he tells me an LTS kernel effort >> is ok to do, but unofficial. Personally, I believe following bpo >> kernel is a bit of a rodeo in comparison to what one expects from >> Debian Stable, which is why I'm looking into this project. > >Steve, *this* is a major open question as I see it, what's you take on >it? > >I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is >the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…)
God, no - really *not* that way at all. I'm thinking of using the kernel in backports at the time we do a build/test/release cycle. People using this and updating will end up following bpo for a while until the Stretch release. >(Probably related to the remark that jessie+½ might become obsolete by >stretch quite soon after too… related as in: what will be the next >upstream LTS kernel?) > > >-- >cheers, > Holger -- Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. st...@einval.com Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
