Re: status of 2.6.7 ? (Was Re: Bug#256763: kernel-image-2.6.6-i386: not ready for sarge just yet)
On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 11:55:19PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> On Mon, Jun 28, 2004 at 04:10:32PM -0700, William Lee Irwin III wrote:
> >> Sounds good. We should move to the 2.6.7 debs ASAP so this should keep
> >> the thing out of people's hands until it's removed from the archives.
>
> On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 08:46:04AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Any news on the 2.6.7 debs ? It is again something like 2-3 weeks now
> > since they where uploaded, isn't it ?
> > Also, what is your opinion on going with 2.6 over 2.4 on certain arches
> > by default ? I noticed nobody seemed to care about my mail on the
> > subject.
> > Friendly,
> > Sven Luther
>
> It would be great to move to 2.6 in as many areas as possible. It's the
> new stable kernel, and 2.4 is in a deep freeze, so we would make the
> best use of maintenance effort that way. I think the only exceptions are
> architecture ports not supported and/or working in 2.6 but that need 2.4
> or earlier to function. But this can only be a recommendation since I
> only have the i386 and alpha packages.
I wish to do the same for powerpc, but when i mentioned it here sunday
evening, nobody responded at all. It has also an influence on how we
threat bugs present in 2.4 and not in 2.6, Christoph wanted to close
them or something such, and we can do this only if we are actively going
to move to 2.6.
On the other hand, if we want to move to 2.6, we need to take the
decision, and make an active search for problems and solving them,
including investigate about userland incompatibilities and such.
That said, we are paralysed by the lack of action of the ftp-masters
again, which is a pain.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: