Re: Too many kernels in unstable

[Peter S Galbraith <GalbraithP@dfo-mpo.gc.ca>]

Edward Betts wrote:

> My suggestion would be:
> 
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.0.38
> kernel-{doc,headers,image,source}-2.2.12
> 
> Can anybody provide arguements against just having two kernels?

1- Sometimes a new `stable' kernel introduces new bugs or
   problems.  (Didn't Debian recommend 2.0.35 over 2.036 or
   something similar).

2- Sometimes a new `stable' kernel breaks on another arch
   (As I recall, there were some alpha-related problems in recent
   2.2.X kernels).

Perhaps the last two kernels of the stable tree(s) is good.
We have more kernels now because 2.0.X didn't die after 2.2.X was
released.  Doesn't that argue that 2.2.X wasn't ready?

Two cents.  I don't have strong feelings about this really.

Peter