On Thu, 2009-10-08 at 00:01 +1100, Russell Coker wrote: > On Wed, 7 Oct 2009, Martin Ågren <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > I believe one of us misread Russell. :) I thought he meant "While I > > understand that you'll be crapped on if a kernel upload eats data, I > > think it would be ok to ...". As I read it, he's not expecting them to > > do anything *more* than they already do, just to relax the protection > > argument a little when it comes to people who are already aiming at > > their feet. > > Yes. Also anyone who really wants their data to be safe won't use Unstable > anyway. > > BTRFS is a little different to most kernel features, it is significant (both > in terms of potential benefits and changes), it has a high profile, and it > needs a lot of testing. > > I would not consider asking the kernel team to do anything special for a > random device driver or anything else of similar scope. > > But it has been pointed out a few times (including a couple of private > messages) that experimental has what I desire (thanks for the advice > everyone). Now I've discovered that firmware-linux-nonfree doesn't seem to > be available so I can't use my e100 Ethernet ports (which are essential for > the test machine in question). [...] That package is currently called firmware-linux but will be renamed shortly because we now also package the DFSG-free firmware from the Linux tree as firmware-linux-free. (firmware-linux will then become a metapackage.) Ben. -- Ben Hutchings To err is human; to really foul things up requires a computer.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part