On Sat, 9 Apr 2005, Andres Salomon wrote:
The way this works in practice is; I get i386 in shape, release k-s 2.6.x-1. Svenl gets powerpc ready, and dannf gets ia64 ready (though they don't coordinate), and Sven releases k-s 2.6.x-2. Horms throws some security fixes in SVN; Joshk gets sparc ready, and releases k-s 2.6.x-3. Due to the security patches, other archs rebuild against 2.6.x-3. And so on.
Don't you think that the way you described (and that's the way it works now) is the major reason behind the very long times it takes to push through the security updates on all architectures? That way it make take people a long time to make k-i even build against 2.6.x-3 due to broken arch-specific patches, missing/added kernel options, etc. I would rather proactively track the changes in k-s, making sure that new k-i may be built against it immediately.
If people want to give advance notice of a k-s release, that's fine, but it shouldn't be a requirement.
I am not saying that it should be a requirement, just something everyone can benefit from (especially in the case of ABI-breaking changes in k-s).
Best regards, Jurij Smakov jurij@wooyd.org Key: http://www.wooyd.org/pgpkey/ KeyID: C99E03CC