(adding d-kernel and d-release) On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > Frans Pop <elendil@planet.nl> writes: > > On Thursday 03 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote: > >> > please hint linux-2.6 2.6.25-6, linux-kbuild-2.6 2.6.25-2, > >> > linux-modules-extra-2.6 2.6.25-5 > >> > >> Please wait few more days until we get it properly done on sid (d-i > >> migrates to it). > > > > Why? We have never blocked migration of a new kernel when that wasn't > > needed because of a D-I release. Uploading udebs and switching to a > > kernel is not dependant on the migration. A new kernel can basically > > migrate (from a D-I PoV) as soon as a release is out. > > Except that kernel team wants it to upload 2.6.26 to sid when it's > released (probably this week) OK, then _that_ should be discussed, not the migration to testing. The two are completely separate issues. In fact, having 2.6.25 in testing would possibly make it easier for the kernel team to do a final (?) 2.6.25 upload with latest stable updates. There are valid arguments to be found for staying with 2.6.25 a bit longer, but "D-I has not yet converted to it" is NOT one of them. A much more important argument is that .25 has seen and will almost certainly continue to get a lot more stabilization effort upstream than is "normal" for upstream kernel releases because long term releases for at least two important other distros are based on it. I doubt .26 will get the same upstream attention. Given the lack of capacity in Debian to do any real stabilization (cherry picking/backporting of fixes from later releases) ourselves, that could IMO be an important consideration for staying with .25 for Lenny. .26 also includes at least one change I know of that is somewhat risky: PAT support for x86 (which could be disabled). Se IMO we should take a real good look at .25 and .26 and check what's new, what's important for Lenny and what's risky, and maybe check if some things we do want could be backported. Delaying the upload of .26 to unstable could give us time, as a distribution, to stay up to date with .25, see how things are going with .26 and make a more informed decision. However, if the kernel team (together with maybe the release team) has already decided on .26 for Lenny, then it would be better to get it into unstable ASAP and for D-I to basically skip .25. > and we have not yet got all architectures tested with 2.6.25 on d-i. So what? That's largely our own damned fault... Cheers, FJP
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.