[Brian May] > Whatever happened to the idea of even numbered kernels being > "stable"? You didn't get the memo? That's an obsolete standard - the 2.6.x line of development has been much more aggressive than past stable series, as far as allowed tree changes, and last July or so (I think it was), Andrew Morton announced that this policy would be purposely continued as it seemed to be working well. They've forfeited the responsibility to produce absolutely stable kernels in favor of more aggressive development. The kernel people now say that the distribution trees are where final stabilization needs to happen. Which is not to say the kernel.org kernels are meant to be as disruptive as, say, 2.3.7, but they are no longer attempting to asymptotically approach 'perfectly stable', like 2.2.25. Andrew Morton left open the possibility of opening up a 2.7 kernel tree some time when some proposed tree changes were going to be *too* disruptive (like real-SMP and dcache were in 2.1.x, I guess), but this won't necessarily happen for awhile. > I guess this means sarge won't work "out-of-the-box" with 2.6.11 and > LVM unless you compile your own kernel (one that doesn't require an > initrd image), or fix this initrd image. If a 2.6.11 kernel makes it into sarge, then yes, someone'll have to fix up initrd-tools for sarge as well. Since the Debian kernel team also maintains initrd-tools, I don't expect this issue to go unnoticed. Peter
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature