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

Re: irc meeting regarding kernel status d-i RC3

On Mon, Jan 31, 2005 at 04:12:06PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> the kernel team asks for an irc meeting regarding
> the chosen kernel for the sarge release.
> the meeting is scheduled for Wednesday 02. Feb 18h UT.

> if that time is very inconvenient for you please speak up,
> Friday 04. Feb 18h UT would also be possible,
> but Wednesday would be preferred.

> arch Maintainer please attend, to have your opinion voiced.
> joey seems needed as representative of the fine d-i folks.

> Current scheduled 2.6.8 kernel for d-i sarge is 1/2 year old,
> and has may open issues (just naming a few: nfs exports, 
> direct I/O, acpi troubles for newer intel boards, ..)

> looking forward to meet you on #debian-kernel.

To put this in context, this is in response to concerns I had passed on to
the debian-kernel team on IRC regarding the number of problems reported in
2.6.8, including lack of robust support for xfs, one of the journalling file
systems currently presented as an option in the installer; bugs in the core
affecting RAID; and bugs that prevent 2.6.8 for booting at all for some
users who are able to use 2.6.7 or 2.6.10.

While we certainly need to be aware that this may be a "bugs we know for
bugs we don't" trade, I think there's enough evidence against 2.6.8 that we
should sit down and have that conversation and make an informed decision.

If Joey is not able to make it for scheduling reasons, we won't be able to
make any decisions at the meeting, but I'm happy to summarize and/or log the
discussion and present it to him afterwards if he agrees to this approach.

Who we *do* need to have present at this meeting are kernel people who can
speak for each of the architectures that are committed to a d-i 2.6 install
method for sarge: hppa, i386, ia64, powerpc, and sparc.  Other archs that
wish to have a 2.6 kernel shipped with sarge should also be present (alpha,
s390, m68k, others?), to ensure that any porting concerns they have are also
taken into consideration.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: