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

Re: irc meeting regarding kernel status d-i RC3

I think it's best to defer any thought of switching d-i to a newer
kernel until after rc3. At the moment rc3 is nearly ready (except for
some missing kernel abiname updates), and I don't see any reason why we
cannot get it released within the month. Switching kernels is sure to
take longer than that, and we'd run the risk of becoming a sarge freeze
blocker, since rc2 is not considered suitable for the final release.

I do think we could consider 2.6.10 after rc3 is released, if the sarge
release is still being indefinitly delayed by other factors at that
point. Independant of concerns over which kernel sarge releases with, I
think that it's beginning to be important to have at least an unstable
version of d-i that uses the newer kernels. We've talked about ways to
do this without destabalising the sarge d-i; it's hard, but not impossible.

If we're going to do that anyway, then we can have a real basis for
comparison of d-i with 2.6.8 vs d-i with 2.6.10, and if the latter
proves to work well enough we can look at using it for a d-i release. If
it doesn't, at least it will be available.

It seems from the meeting and other discussion that there are no really
release critical issues in the 2.6.8 kernel that affect d-i and cannot
be at least worked around. Some of the issues raised should probably be
added to the d-i errata -- could someone go back through the transcript
and pick out errata items? As to 2.6.10's suitability for release, my
impression from the meeting and other discussion is that we really don't
know, and that it's likely to have RC items of its own, especially on
less popular architectures, that will need more kernel updates to

see shy jo

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: