Kernel 2.4 in Etch (was: Re: Re: /run vs /var/run)
This point isn't too bad yet. As you've seen 2.4 had a security update a
few days ago. Sure, it's from August, but 2.6 isn't doing better anyway.
Some Debian kernel team people (such as Horms) seem to be dedicated to
backport upstream's security work. A better question is whether there
will be active security support for 2.4 if it sticks in Etch. This is
unlikely to be much the case, considering that with the number of
regressions in 2.6 continually dropping, when Etch releases 2.4 will
probably look nearly as bad as 2.2 did when Sarge released (that was, no
upstream release since over a year). So if we want 2.4 in Etch and
decent security, the kernel team may have to do better than upstream...
Another more interesting question is whether it's worth keeping 2.4 in
Etch (which should mean about 3 years of backporting) assuming that the
stable security infrastructure isn't fixed before Etch releases. 3.1r1
was delayed due to kernel updates, and when it's ready to be released it
has a 4 months old package. 3 months of updatedness gained, 4 lost.
In this context, if the security team doesn't change, removing half of
the kernels would be a real help for the security of the rest of stable.
Are we seriously expecting to ship etch with 2.4
kernels? Is anyone still doing active security support for it?
But for the first question, if there isn't a decision (and I don't know
by who and how this decision will be made) about this in the few next
monthes, the not so long schedule for Etch may make it impossible to do
such a large change IMO.