On Mon, Jul 04, 2016 at 04:01:10PM -0400, Nicholas D Steeves wrote: > I still wonder if a fork of the last linux:src=4.4, updated to bring > it to linux-4.4.14 would be a lower support burden? I'm still finding > that there are a fair number of issues reported with 4.5.x and 4.6.x > on various mailing lists. Does anyone know how Skylake support is > like for the 4.4.x branch? What is arm64 support like? I've > corresponded with Ben Hutchings, and he tells me an LTS kernel effort > is ok to do, but unofficial. Personally, I believe following bpo > kernel is a bit of a rodeo in comparison to what one expects from > Debian Stable, which is why I'm looking into this project. Steve, *this* is a major open question as I see it, what's you take on it? I assume "forking" the kernel for jessie+½ as done for etch-and-half is the plan already? (forking as in using a new source package…) (Probably related to the remark that jessie+½ might become obsolete by stretch quite soon after too… related as in: what will be the next upstream LTS kernel?) -- cheers, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature