Re: bits from the release team
* Steinar H. Gunderson (firstname.lastname@example.org) [060103 23:37]:
> On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:45:16PM +0100, Frans Pop wrote:
> > 2.6.8 is not an optimal kernel, but largely due to timing (i.e. SATA just
> > starting to get implemented).
> The real question (IMHO) is probably whether it would be possible to get
> newer kernels into volatile. I'd guess "probably not", given that stuff like
> udev tends to break every other release, but it's a tempting thought -- the
> sarge machine here seems to run miles better with a 2.6.14 backport (yay for
> backports.org) than it ever did with 2.6.8 (which seems to have a really
> really unstable USB layer).
I think it would be possible, but it requires some help from the kernel
team side - and of course I can understand if they don't want to take
care of yet another kernel version. Please see the discussion starting