Re: Selection of kernel for Lenny (was: 2.6.25-2 testing sync)
On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 05:30:09PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> (adding d-kernel and d-release)
> On Monday 07 July 2008, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> > Frans Pop <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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.
testing users are currently on an unsupported kernel.
> 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.
that doesn't matter a lot, if you look into our 2.6.18 or the RH patch
biest you'll notice the RH men force boot behind their backporting
> .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.
.26 is the release kernel.
so i'm happy with push on it.
.25 is a possible backup.