Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Which 2.4 kernel-source for sarge?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 12:49:08AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
>
> Another argument for 2.4.26 is that going to a releaseable 2.4.26 image
> is just a rebuild of the existing 2.4.26 package, while some archs with 2.4.26
> images don't already have 2.4.27 packages (m68, arm, sparc)[1]. Going with
> 2.4.27 would mean generating these new packages & going through the NEW queue
> delay (which, to be fair, has been awfully quick for kernel stuff lately).
> Once that has completed, we need new l-k-di packages (also a NEW delay) &
> updates to svn, followed by a new d-i release.
>
> This argument goes away once 2.4.27 kernels are made available on these
> architectures (m68k, arm, sparc: I'm looking at you).
m68k here. There are 2.4.27 images available, they are just not yet in
sarge. We need at least 2.4.26-3 for atari in sarge, which still needs 3
days it seems. The 2.4.27 images need 6 days. Yes, I could have uploaded
them with urgency high or higher, but I do not think that is justified.
It would be nice if you guys made up your mind. One day you say .26,
definetely. Then I get a mail, I have less than 48h to provide 2.4.27
images, doh... and at that time there was not even a kernel-source for 27
available. Kind of hard to build images without a source. Maybe we should
just wait for 2.4.28? I prefer even numbers. Actually, 32 is even more even.
Or maybe 64?
Please look somewhere else now,
Christian
Reply to: