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

Re: D-I Etch+1/2 kernel selection

Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes:

> (Dropping CCs to d-release/kernel/cd.)
> On Monday 04 February 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
>> Those patches looks OK for commiting right now from my point of view.
> I want at least confirmation that this will actually be the way we're going 
> to do Etch+1/2. I've also just sent a mail to Ted Tso with some questions 
> regarding the inode_size issue.

Even if we don't go this way it would allow us to add support for
lenny to install etch anyway. This is a nice feature as we had for sarge.

>> > I then added a hack in base-installer which does the following.
>> > If the (new) debconf template "base-installer/kernel/altmeta" has a
>> > value (e.g. 'etchnhalf'), it will add new potential kernel defaults
>> > before the the "normal" kernel defaults, with that value postfixed.
>> I think that prefmeta (preferred metapackage) is more logical for the
>> template name from my point of view.
> Not sure if I agree that prefmeta would be better than altmeta, but I have 
> no strong feeling about it. I'll wait for other opinions.


> More important is that these changes may very well impact your release 
> planning, depending on how quickly we get the needed responses.
> Note that we could delay the patches for a next Beta (based on 2.6.24), but 
> that would be a pity if they decide to go for 2.6.22 instead. In that case, 
> if the patches go in before the first Beta, we would not need to do an 
> extra release.

I share same feeling. I'd prefer to delay the releasing and put all
needed patches in on Beta1 then delay the patches.

        O T A V I O    S A L V A D O R
 E-mail: otavio@debian.org      UIN: 5906116
 GNU/Linux User: 239058     GPG ID: 49A5F855
 Home Page: http://otavio.ossystems.com.br
"Microsoft sells you Windows ... Linux gives
 you the whole house."

Reply to: