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

Re: [Decision] Kernel version for stretch

I read this last week just before slipping into a fever in which I had
recurring dreams about the relations of unnameable abstract entities
that seemed later to correspond to software components.

On recovering from the flu, I was pleased to find that I hadn't
imagined that Niels Thykier wrote:
> Hi,
> On the Release Team's IRC meeting today we concluded the following[1]:
>  * We expect to release Stretch with the LTS release based on Linux 4.10
>  * We intend to delay the freeze (all milestone dates) by 2 months to
>    accommodate the above.
>    - Note that the expected release date of Linux 4.10 will then fall
>      between the "new" freeze and the "deep" freeze.

Thank you very much for accommodating this request!

>  * The linux 4.10 release will be entitled to a freeze exception if it
>    misses "deep freeze" by 5th of Feb.
>    - This exception only applies to linux.
>  * We would like to encourage the Linux kernel maintainers to upload
>    release candidates of Linux 4.10 in sid.
>    - The sooner we can spot regressions/problems in reverse
>      dependencies, the better.

Given the recent changes in linux packaging made to support easy
derivation of source packages such as linux-grsec, it should be easy to
upload a temporary linux-4.10 source package in parallel with linux.

This would allow rollback from 4.10 to 4.9 simply by changing which
version the linux-latest package refers to - no fake version or epoch
would be needed to make the 4.9 packages look newer.

> This decision is based on assumptions about the current release schedule
> of the Linux kernel.  Should the expected release date for the LTS
> change considerably, we may have to revise the decision.

And of course I'll let you know if the kernel release cycle deviates
significantly from expected.


Ben Hutchings
Tomorrow will be cancelled due to lack of interest.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part

Reply to: