Re: Rethinking stable updates policy
On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 09:57:37AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> John Goerzen wrote:
> > On Sat, Aug 26, 2006 at 08:43:53AM +0200, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > > John Goerzen wrote:
> > > > Examples of things that should happen in stable, but haven't been
> > > > happening reliably:
> > > >
> > > > * Kernel updates with more broad hardware support
> > >
> > > This requires new kernel packages, new utilities and a new installer.
> > > It a hell of an effort to get this done. Just look at what it takes
> > > to update these in stable with "only" security updates.
> > New kernel packages, and a rebuilt install image, yes. New utilities?
> > Which utilities?
> I already forgot most of them again, but among the packages required were:
mkinitrd is dead :)
well, one could consider kernel-package as part of the kernel package, really.
yaird is its name.
> Just try to get a more recent kernel from backports.org on a sarge
> machine and you'll see.
Actually, apart from the udev issue, only a recompiled yaird is needed to run
the latest sid kernel on a sarge machine.
I am actually typing this, on a sarge/powerpc machine, where the latest sid
kernels was installed as is on a sarge system with only the rebuild yaird.
Naturally, initramfs-tools and is huge dependency chain on world+dog is a
fully other matter.
> > The only one I'm aware of that breaks with newer kernels is udev, and
> > hasn't that been fixed for awhile now?
> Oh, right. udev as well. I prayed for the machine to boot as it was
> in a data center several km away from me. *sweat*
Yes, we should get a backported udev with more stability going or something.
Udev is the real pain on this, and since initramfs-tools needs it ...
> > I'm not talking about something like 2.4 to 2.6, just point releases
> > within 2.6.
> I'm talking about 2.6.8 (sarge) to 2.6.15 (current kernel that time)
yeah, udev sucks, but apart from that it should be transparent.