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

Re: Why discover1-data is so old in Debian Sarge, while in unstable is up to date ?

* Otavio Salvador (otavio@debian.org) [050611 21:04]:
> >>>>> "andreas" == Andreas Barth <aba@not.so.argh.org> writes:
>     andreas> * Eddy Petrisor (eddy.petrisor@gmail.com) [050608 21:03]:
>     >> On 6/7/05, Petter Reinholdtsen <pere@hungry.com> wrote: >
>     >> [Francesco P. Lovergine] > > Someone suggested that
>     >> discover1-data should enter the volatile > > archive.  It could
>     >> have sense, IMHO. That along with an up-to-date > > d-installer
>     >> could allow installation of sarge for years from now...
>     >> > 
>     >> > Would need a kernel with up to date drivers as well.
>     >> so? can't there be modules, like the ones for pcmcia?  I know
>     >> backporting is hard sometimes, but the idea with discover in
>     >> volatile, seems reasonable and justified.
>     andreas> IMHO it's first the decision of the maintainers whether
>     andreas> they consider an updated package in volatile to be
>     andreas> sensible or not. Also, a newer kernel _might_ be possible
>     andreas> in volatile one day - but that's not something for the
>     andreas> weekend after the release of sarge. Whoever needs always
>     andreas> the latest stuff is better off with backports.org and
>     andreas> similar repositories.
>     But kernel is a lot more complicated since it, to be used on
>     install time, need a updated installer and a lot of other
>     things. Only the kernel available on volatile doesn't solve the
>     problem with unsuported hardware by install time.

Agreed. That is one of the resons why I don't consider it a target for
_now_. Perhaps a bit later, an e.g. updated netinst image might be a
good idea. But that's only circulating ideas, perhaps we just better
tell people "use the sid installer, and take the kernel from volatile".
Or something else.


Reply to: