Re: status of 2.6.7 ? (Was Re: Bug#256763: kernel-image-2.6.6-i386: not ready for sarge just yet)
On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 03:59:10PM +1000, Andrew Pollock wrote:
> On Wed, Jun 30, 2004 at 07:45:25AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > Yeah, but what about 2.6 for powerpc and x86 (and maybe some other who
> > is ready) and 2.4 for the rest of it (and 2.2 for some m68k subarches).
> > I believe now is the time to take that decision, it may even be too late
> > already, given the sarge release schedule, and provided the GR doesn't
> > finish in some catastrophic result for the sarge release.
> Well, AIUI, d-i should be able to on a per-arch basis default to a 2.6
> kernel. So we can have sarge release with a 2.6 kernel by default on
> selected architectures. -boot may correct me.
Well, the important thing is not so much -boot, but compatbility with
the rest of userland, as well as upgrrades from woody with a 2.2 or 2.4
kernel to sarge with a 2.6 kernel.
For example, i know that the XF86Config-4 file needs to be changed when
using a ps2 mouse, since it was /dev/psaux previously, and is
/dev/input/mice now. Breaking X during the upgrade is hardly acceptable
if we are going to make 2.6 the default.
> > (Still a bit pissed at the syntactic GR proponent who slyly passed this
> > when nobody was noticing)
> Yes well, what's done is done. Learn from it.
Yeah, never let your guard done, even if you are away, and hardly
connected, and just got out of a month/year long GR over the non-free
issue, even if they claimed it was syntactical changes only. I should
have learned from the first tentative of Branden to get the non-free
removal clause in on the sly.