Hi there! On Thu, 30 Jan 2014 15:39:59 +0100, Didier 'OdyX' Raboud wrote: > Le jeudi, 30 janvier 2014, 02.51:48 Cyril Brulebois a écrit : >> II. How to install a backported kernel >> ====================================== >> (…) >> Now here's another way which doesn't look so scary: >> >> 1) Make sure the kernel installation step still installs stable's >> kernel (which might not be functional, but having it shouldn't >> hurt; and not changing such critical code doesn't look too >> bad…), and make sure it stores the package name somewhere for >> later use. > > Sure. Having the stable kernel installed in all cases is definitely > good. Fully agree, which is actually what I do IRL (the stable kernel is never removed). And then I realized that even on my laptop with sid, I always keep the sid kernel installed, despite most of the time using the latest experimental one ;-) >> IV. How to maintain wheezy-backports compared to master >> ======================================================= >> >> Since master both gets kernel config updates (which we want for >> backports) and many other irrelevant stuff, I'm a bit undecided on how >> to keep track of wheezy-backports: either cherry-pick relevant stuff >> from master; or merge regularly, reverting unnecessary bits. I would >> tend to go with the former. > > It looks like a matter of intent: either we want "stable d-i + kernel > from backports + glue" or "testing d-i built against stable + kernel > from backports". The first is less risky for what d-i is concerned, > while the latter allows a wider testing of the jessie d-i… The latter is > what you have in your branch currently, no? Interesting question: I was under the impression that we wanted Didier's former, i.e. "stable d-i + kernel from backports + glue" at least because we modify the least possible bits. Which seems to me very similar to the general rules for backports. Thx, bye, Gismo / Luca
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature