On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:43:49PM +0000, maximilian attems wrote: > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 12:56:50PM +0200, Pierre Habouzit wrote: > > On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +0000, maximilian attems wrote: > > > On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote: > > > > * Pierre Habouzit (madcoder@debian.org) [080707 19:48]: > > > > > Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive, > > > > > so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix > > > > > and is unbackportable (does such a beast even exist ?) I'm rather > > > > > opposed to it. Note that the asm/page.h mess is still not fixed thanks > > > > > to hppa. > > > > > > > > > > Disclaimer: it's my own opinion, I did not check what other Release Team > > > > > member think about this. > > > > > > > > I agree with you, at least with my current informations. > > > > > > please read the changelog trunk on all the 2.6.26 fixes. > > > > Huh, that's not really our work, you as the maintainer should help us > > understand why we would like to deal with 3 months of FTBFS *right now*. > > Not to mention the libata changes fjp talks about, that would probably > > break many upgrades and for which there is no known solution. > > right so the 2.6.26 summary: > * closes 50 bugs on upload (mostly 2.6.25 regressions) I'm really afraid with the number of bugs it'll open though. > * has upstream coordination with xen and openvz Does this mean that dom0 will work with .26 ? If yes, then maybe .26 is really worth considering. If not, this is quite moot. > * is the first version with kernel debugger > * much better laptop support (wireless, uvc,..) > * kvm ported to IA64, PPC and S390 > > > we have allways stated that .26 will be the release kernel. > > > > The sole mail from the kernel team that I can find is[0]. We've seen > > no updates from you since AFAICT. Given the content of the mail, and its > > age, I don't see how we can know that. > > right to debian-release that was the last time we got asked to give a > statement. in discussion on d-kernel and with d-boot we allways stated > to work on 2.6.26 for Lenny. Well, we did asked for updates from core teams in our mails to d-d-a numerous times without our prior nagging, which was clearly meant to avoid this kind of communication issues. For the rest I assume the release team will have to discuss things a bit further. > > [1] e.g. have you done full scale archive rebuilds to show that a new > > linux-libc-dev won't at least cause dozens of FTBFS like the > > 2.6.25 did ? > > there are statements from waldi and vorlon to consider the 2.6.25 > linux-libc-dev status as frozen. Well, that's a sine qua non condition. L-L-Dev breakages are horrible, and we just cannot aford one. It does not mean that I consider .26 to be a clever idea right now, but a l-l-d breakage would be a plain no-go. -- ·O· Pierre Habouzit ··O madcoder@debian.org OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgp0K8c2_g5bk.pgp
Description: PGP signature