Re: status of 2.6.7 ? (Was Re: Bug#256763: kernel-image-2.6.6-i386: not ready for sarge just yet)

[Andrew Pollock <apollock@debian.org>]

On Tue, Jun 29, 2004 at 09:40:15AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> 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.

AFAIK, there's one or two arches that haven't even got to 2.4 yet. I'm
pushing for all 2.2 kernel packages to get the boot from the archive, but I
think m68k has issues with 2.4. I think we're a long way away from universal
2.6.

regards

Andrew