[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New boot-floppies for 3.0r1?

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 02:58:01PM -0400, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> I think we're waiting for the problem to be fixed by the kernel
> maintainer.  We should use a patched 2.4.18 since it seems unlikely to
> me that the archive maintainers will allow a new kernel (2.4.19) into
> stable point releases.

Eh? Why wouldn't we accept stable kernel updates in point releases? We
always have in the past, haven't we? Potato has 2.2.19, which was released
25th March 2001, well after 2.2r0 in August 2000, eg...

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 at 11:35:29PM +0200, Eduard Bloch wrote:
> Adam Di Carlo schrieb am Mittwoch, den 11. September 2002:
> > > I'm in favor of doing a new boot-floppies release, hopefully we can
> > > get it tested for 3.0.r1, seconds?
> I am not sure how to test it extensively without moving it to testing.

Stable point releases have _nothing_ to do with dists/testing,
they're completely separate. Nothing's changed here at all -- you
just need to tweak CVS to your satisfaction, update other packages in
proposed-updates to your satisfaction, tell -boot and -testing that there
are new boot-floppies available somewhere, then, if that works out okay,
upload them to proposed-updates.

> 2.4.19 also requires an update of modutils 

If that's the case then we should be updating modutils anyway, since it's
entirely reasonable for woody users to want to run the latest stable
kernel version. (Looking at the modutils README, I can't see anything
between 2.4.15 and 2.4.20 that's particularly crucial though)


Anthony Towns <aj@humbug.org.au> <http://azure.humbug.org.au/~aj/>
I don't speak for anyone save myself. GPG signed mail preferred.

 ``If you don't do it now, you'll be one year older when you do.''

Attachment: pgpzL1FN5Iq9w.pgp
Description: PGP signature

Reply to: