Re: LTS Kernel in Backports?
>> I've always wondered why Debian doesn't pick up Longterm support
>> kernels for their stable releases, as soon as they mature. I assume
>> this has been discussed. Let me point out our current example:
>>
>> Squeeze released with LTS kernel 2.6.32 (first time this has ever
>> happened). Wouldn't it be beneficial for Debian to include the new LTS
>> kernel (3.0) in a point release (recommended for HW compatibility, but
>> not forced) for Squeeze ?
>
> No, new hardware support generally has to be available in the installer.
> Therefore we have the options to:
>
> 1. Backport new hardware support
> 2. Update the default kernel (like SLE does now)
> 3. Offer 2 different kernel versions in the installer (further
> complicating CD mastering and installation guides)
So is the workload of option 2 is bigger to 1?. I understand the
situation is more complicated than I initially thought.
>> I realize this idea implies more work for an already reduced number of
>> people, but since it's an LTS kernel, like 2.6.32, shouldn't that make
>> it a little easier?
>
> Not really.
>
> No-one is stopping you from installing 3.0.y. 'make deb-pkg' works
> pretty well.
I see. Yes normally I compile my own kernels. However, I have the
annoyance that dkms fails to build modules automatically (while
module-assistant does not fail)
Reply to: