Re: 2.6.12 in volatile?
On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:40:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > Hi,
> >
> > So, was there any decision whether to provide 2.6.8+security in
> > volatile, or just backport linux-2.6 (2.6.12)? I need to do a 2.6.12
> > backport, so if people are wanting 2.6.12 for volatile, I'll do that;
> > however, if people want 2.6.8+security in volatile, I'll just put 2.6.12
> > in p.d.o/~dilinger, and make it known via apt-get.org.
> >
> > I've had reports of breakage with 2.6.12 and sarge which I believe are
> > related to udev, so we might need to keep that updated as well. There
> > is also some breakage with powerpc and older versions of kernel-package;
> > we'd need to determine what's necessary for that (my tests on i386 w/
> > 2.6.12-1 went just fine w/ the kernel-package that's in sarge).
>
> We need to backport kernel-package too, or i can submit a patch against the
> kernel-patch in sarge ?
If we put 2.6.12 in volatile (sarge) then it should use the unified
packaging scheme, so we won't have to bother with per-arch
kernel-image/kernel-patch packages.
Of course for 2.6.8 (and 2.4.27) we still need to update using
the old packaging system.
Does that answer the question, I'm not entirely sure what
you are getting at.
--
Horms
Reply to: