On Sun, 2016-02-14 at 15:48 -0500, Martin Michlmayr wrote: > * Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> [2016-02-14 15:58]: > > > * If we stick with 4.4, the Debian Linux maintainers receives > > > practically no advantage from Greg's LTS effort. > > > > No, we would benefit from that but this is very early to freeze the > > kernel and we would need to do a lot of work on backporting hardware > > support. > > Based on my gut feeling, backporting stuff into 4.4 would be more work > than doing a long-term stable release based on 4.9. Based on your > experience, do you think that's accurate, Ben? I think they're around the same amount of effort. > (I think it would be different if we were to use 4.4 when 4.5 was the > current kernel, but 4.4 to 4.10 is going to be a huge delta.) > > So imho we should get 4.9 into unstable, agree at some point on 4.9 vs > 4.10 and if we agree on 4.10 then get 4.10-rc releases into unstable, > and ask people to test daily d-i images based on that. Yes, that's a good way to reduce the risk of a late switch. > (Of course I should mention that I'm not part of the kernel team. But > speaking as an ARM porter, I think going with 4.4 would be a disaster. > We're going to see a lot of changes this year, especially on ARM64.) I know. > Another option would be to go with 4.4 and make it easy for d-i to > support kernels from backports (something we should do anyway). But I > think releasing with a 1.5 year old kernel is just going to add to the > "Debian is out of date" view. There's that too. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings The most exhausting thing in life is being insincere. - Anne Morrow Lindberg
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part