On Feb 29, Goswin von Brederlow <goswin-v-b@web.de> wrote: > Lets hope it is improving. But that only shows that depending on > controversial linux features should still be a concern. Expect more of the same (IIRC in the next upload), because the udev upstream maintainer likes to use modern kernel features. The same applies to systemd. OTOH, newer kernels are not supposed to break old udev releases again. > them. But that isn't really the kernels fault. It's udevs fault for not > supporting both ways from the start. Talk is cheap. Supporting both sysfs layouts would have had a significant maintenance overhead. Red Hat does not support upgrading between two major releases, so they have no incentive to support old kernels. > > If a lockstep upgrade was required then it wouldn't have been possible > > to do online sarge-etch and lenny-squeeze upgrades at all. > I remember that for at least one upgrade you first had to upgarde to the > latest point release before doing a dist-upgrade or the version > requirements would have made upgrading impossible. I think you are wrong here. > Overall I'm verry much in the group that wants systemd in Debian. But as > an option, not a requirement. If haven forbid someone breaks cgroups it The complexity of some options is unmanageable. -- ciao, Marco
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature