On Tuesday 03 January 2006 22:02, Sven Luther wrote: > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time > with this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2 > month. 2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing (i.e. SATA just starting to get implemented). I remember we did consider using 2.6.10 instead of 2.6.8 and decided not to mainly because it was not really that much better than 2.6.8. As I remember it, this was a joint decision by the kernel team, release managers and the d-i developers. Not something that the kernel team were really pushing and was blocked by some assholes from the d-i team who did not want to cooperate. The first kernel after 2.6.8 that was a real improvement was 2.6.12 and that was released definitely too late for Sarge. > Already it should be possible, provided the d-i guys get their act > together, to have a new d-i .udeb sets within 48 hours or less of a new > upstream kernel release, altough the image build may take longer, and > we hope to get the external modules and patches streamlined by then. This is an extremely bad way to get friendly cooperation and discussion about changing anything. Producing new udebs for all architectures for d-i can be done quite fast, as evidenced by the recent uploads for 2.6.14, provided the porters taking care of the udebs for their architecture . I expect little problems or delay for 2.6.15. As I remember it, the update from 2.6.8 to 2.6.12 was done quite fast for i386. Yes, we did wait a while before updating to 2.6.14, but that was mainly because d-i itself first had to prepare its userland for the removal of devfs. So please, get off your hobbyhorse and stop pissing people off with unfounded statements.
Description: PGP signature