Re: 2.6.13, experimental and 2.6.14-rc ...

[Horms <horms@debian.org>]

On Thu, Oct 06, 2005 at 11:15:04AM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
> 
> On Thu, 6 Oct 2005 10:13:05 +0200
> Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr> wrote:
> 
> > On Wed, Oct 05, 2005 at 08:19:14PM +0200, Jonas Smedegaard wrote:
> > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > > > > If not, why?
> > > > 
> > > > I guess generic miscomprehension, or whatever. The fact that
> > > > ubuntu uses initramfs-tools for example, and so on.
> > > 
> > > I would guess similarly. My interest was (and still is) actual
> > > concrete reasons from those (if any) not interested.
> > > 
> > > Silence as response to both questions (from all but you and I) I
> > > dare interpret as "we have already decided on initramfs-tools and
> > > are either too lazy or too busy to even shed light on the issues we
> > > have with yaird".
> > 
> > Please interpret it as too busy to reply right now, as many in the
> > kernel team are over-worked with RL stuff these days :)
> 
> Ok - I apologize for being rude.
> 
> What does "RL" stand for?

I guess Real Life.

There has been a distinct lack of activity in the kernel-team over
the past week or so. I agree with Sven's analysis that this
implies people are busy. I for one am in that camp, though
I am doing kernel stuff today.

Unfortunately this isn't getting us much closer to resolving yaird vs
initramfs-tools or any other issues relating to 2.6.13 and beyond.

I am, right at this moment, building 2.6.13-1.experimental.1, and
assuming the i386 build completes I will upload. I already know it
doesn't compile on HPPA, and I expect other FTBFS. On the other hand, it
will probably work quite nicely on enough architectures that there is a
benifit to users. In any case, hopefully having some release out there
will get some more energy back into getting 2.6.13 and beyond into Etch.

-- 
Horms