On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 04:00 +0900, GOTO Masanori wrote: > At Sun, 10 Jul 2005 16:48:15 +0200, > maximilian attems wrote: > > > * Older kernels get removed; no need to ask for manual removal of > > > linux-kernel-2.6.12 after 2.6.13 becomes available for all archs. > > > However, we lose the ability to have multiple 2.6's in a release, > > > which sounds like a win to me; we shouldn't be doing multiple 2.6 > > > releases anymore anyways, the security team has made it clear they > > > don't want to support multiple kernels, and it would be extra pressure > > > for all archs to keep up. > > One concern is broken kernels; old working kernel is removed due to > new kernel version is installed, but new one does work. It may be > kernel crash (ex: oops during bootup), or some module breakage (ex: > sound module cannot resolve its symbols correctly). In other words, I > (and I guess a lot of people) have been used between "working" or > "non-working" kernels via kernel package version number. Except for > this worry, it's nice idea. This is the source package only, not the binary (image) package; so, if users have a working kernel installed, they will be able to upgrade, test out the new kernel, and use the old one if the new one is broken. If we upload a new kernel that is broken, and it replaces the old one, it will still only be in unstable (as long as someone files an RC bug. Experience has shown that people are not shy about filing RC bugs when we break their machine horribly ;) > > I think asking to debian-devel and so on is generally good idea to > hear thoughts of user/developer. > This shouldn't affect users, only developers. > > there is still snapshot.d.o for unhappy testers. > > Note that recently snapshot.d.o got fs crash; it's still under fsck > recovery. snapshot.d.o is not perfect solutions for such users... > > Regards, > -- gotom -- Andres Salomon <dilinger@debian.org>
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part