Re: LTS Kernel in Backports?
On Tue, Mar 13, 2012 at 06:23:57PM -0400, Andres Cimmarusti wrote:
> >> 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.
Option 2 is against Debian policy.
> >> 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)
I think it will if you install the linux-headers package before the
linux-image package. The problem is that the linux-headers package
build by 'make deb-pkg' does not call any hook scripts (and I don't
think the hooks are specified anywhere). That is fixable, of course.
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus