Re: renaming linux-kernel source package
On Mon, 2005-07-11 at 01:53 -0700, Matt Taggart wrote:
> GOTO Masanori writes...
> > At Mon, 11 Jul 2005 02:08:51 +0300,
> > Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > 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 ;)
> > Thanks for your explanation, I was confused the difference between
> > source package and binary package. Yes, your idea is definitely good
> > idea for me.
> I still see the issue that GOTO brought up as a problem. There is no "one size
> fits all" 2.6 kernel version, there's just too many drivers and too many
We are at least pretending that's the case, because we do not plan to
ever have multiple 2.6 kernels in a single stable release. If there's a
bug in the kernel we're currently trying to stablize, then it needs to
be fixed in that version.
Note that one side-effect of dropping the minor number in the source
package name is that we won't be able to have one kernel in sid and one
in testing and be able to use sid as an update path. For example,
consider the way we had 2.6.10 in sid and 2.6.8 in testing late in
sarge. This allowed us to get some testing on a kernel and make a more
informed decision about which one we froze on for sarge. We can of
course use experimental for this, but we can't expect to get much
testing w/ experimental.