Re: [PROPOSAL] 2.4.27 as default 2.4 kernel for sarge

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Sat, Aug 28, 2004 at 11:24:12AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 09:25:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Fri, Aug 27, 2004 at 10:58:06PM +0200, Norbert Tretkowski wrote:
> > > There was no final decision if we ship 2.4.27 with sarge.
> > 
> > I wonder what needs to happen to have a formal d-k decision.
> > Do other subgroups of Debian have a mechanism for this?  Maybe we
> > need a designated person or persons who can speak for each arch.
> > (Please only reply to debian-kernel on this topic).
> 
> Well, ultimately, the decision is with the RMs. But i guess you are as good as
> any to take that decision.

Ok, i think this indesicion is more problematic and hurts us more than
anything else.

There has been rather large people speaking in favor of 2.4.27, anbd only a
few issues are 2.4.26 related. I thus propose the following :

  1) We will now decide to go with 2.4.27.

  2) any issue that comes up with 2.4.27 is not a reason to not use it and
  revert to 2.4.26, but an incentive to fix it in 2.4.27.

  3) i will build powerpc 2.4.27 packages based on the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and
  no more on the -benh tree which has basically been unmaintained since
  january or so. Pre-2.4.25 or so, the powerpc kernels where anyway based on
  the linuxppc-2.4 tree, and the -benh tree only adds support for some newer
  pmac models, who should be using 2.6 anyway.

Now, there is this issue with this guys whose ide chipset is not recognized by
the debian 2.4.27 kernel, but ok with both 2.4.26 and pristine upstream
2.4.27. We need to fix this. We also need to find out any other problem that
needs fixing, and i now propose that we list those here in a followup of this
thread.

Does this sound like a good solution ? Indecision only paralizes us, and stops
us from taking the action we will anyway have to take in the end.

Friendly,

Sven Luther