Re: [PROPOSAL] Re: Which 2.4 kernel-source for sarge?
On Tue, Aug 24, 2004 at 09:49:36AM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> 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?
Well, it was the WE, alioth was done, and not many participated in the early
thread. tbm has pointed problem with some arches on 2.4.26 which are solved
with 2.4.27 though, so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: