Re: Thinking about a "jessie and a half" release
On Tue, Jul 05, 2016 at 06:11:24PM +0000, Holger Levsen wrote:
>On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:01:10PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote:
>> I still wonder if a fork of the last linux:src=4.4, updated to bring
>> it to linux-4.4.14 would be a lower support burden? I'm still finding
>> that there are a fair number of issues reported with 4.5.x and 4.6.x
>> on various mailing lists. Does anyone know how Skylake support is
>> like for the 4.4.x branch? What is arm64 support like? I've
>> corresponded with Ben Hutchings, and he tells me an LTS kernel effort
>> is ok to do, but unofficial. Personally, I believe following bpo
>> kernel is a bit of a rodeo in comparison to what one expects from
>> Debian Stable, which is why I'm looking into this project.
>
>Steve, *this* is a major open question as I see it, what's you take on
>it?
>
>I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is
>the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…)
God, no - really *not* that way at all. I'm thinking of using the
kernel in backports at the time we do a build/test/release
cycle. People using this and updating will end up following bpo for a
while until the Stretch release.
>(Probably related to the remark that jessie+½ might become obsolete by
>stretch quite soon after too… related as in: what will be the next
>upstream LTS kernel?)
>
>
>--
>cheers,
> Holger
--
Steve McIntyre, Cambridge, UK. steve@einval.com
Who needs computer imagery when you've got Brian Blessed?
Reply to: