Re: more current kernels for sarge in volatile?
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:31:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * Andreas Barth (firstname.lastname@example.org) [051229 13:12]:
> > * Sven Luther (email@example.com) [051229 13:05]:
> > > > - Any security issues that happen need to be resolved - so we should
> > > > limit the number of versions we offer.
> > > Indeed, so the best is to have it be identic to either the etch or the sid
> > > kernel (or preferably both). They in fact don't even need to be rebuilt as far
> > > as i can tell, which makes offering them to users rather trivial, provided the
> > > support packages are there.
> > Well, if we want to keep the minor number in volatile, than either
> > kernel development has to be stalled (which is perhaps a not too good
> > idea), or the kernels will be different soon enough.
> Waldi asked me how to parse this sentence. Thanks for asking.
> The basic approach, as write earlier, is to choose one minor number for
> volatile, and stay with it, until sarge is archived. If we go that way,
> either the kernel development needs to be stalled in sid (which is a not
> too good idea), or the kernels will be different soon enough.
I believe this will be useless past a few month after you fixed the minor
number, and i believe not something the kernel team is interested in