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

Re: Bug#219582: ITP: linux -- Linux 2.4 kernel

On Fri, Nov 07, 2003 at 11:00:23PM +0100, Andreas Metzler wrote:
> >> No, the fix is a fucking huge amount of work, which is why nobody has
> >> done it before, even for the upstream kernel.
> > Appliing patches dinamicaly and conditionaly is a huge amount of work?
> No, choosing, writing and testing the patches on the respective
> machines is.

Consider how long it takes for us to get XFree86 4.3.0 out, when most
of the other distro's are already shipping with 4.3.0, and the CVS
tree generally works just fine for i386.  I'm told one of the reasons
for this is because XFree86 attempts to support all architectures.  

My concern with trying to have a single kernel that supports all
architectures it that it will be so hard to upgrade to a newer version
that it will become as stale and obsolete as XFree86, even in sid, is
today.  (Yes I know about XFree86 4.3.0 in experimental; but the fact
that we needed to do is precisely my point.  

XFree86 4.3.0 was released February 27, 2003.  Almost 9 months later,
it still hasn't hit sid.  Do you want to be shipping a kernel which is
9-12 months out of date when the stable release is finally cut, such
that it is some 2-3 years out of date before it is finally replaced
with the next Debian stable release?

If not, think carefully about whether the "one package for all
architecture" really makes sense!  I don't think it does, and I think
folks are massively understestimating the amount if work it takes to
support something like the kernel or an X server on all Debian

						- Ted

Reply to: