Re: 2.6.12 in volatile?

[Sven Luther <sven.luther@wanadoo.fr>]

On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 02:43:15PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 07:21:06AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Wed, Aug 10, 2005 at 10:40:12AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 11:40:16PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > > On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 10:43:22AM -0400, Andres Salomon wrote:
> > > > > Hi,
> > > > > 
> > > > > So, was there any decision whether to provide 2.6.8+security in
> > > > > volatile, or just backport linux-2.6 (2.6.12)?  I need to do a 2.6.12
> > > > > backport, so if people are wanting 2.6.12 for volatile, I'll do that;
> > > > > however, if people want 2.6.8+security in volatile, I'll just put 2.6.12
> > > > > in p.d.o/~dilinger, and make it known via apt-get.org.
> > > > > 
> > > > > I've had reports of breakage with 2.6.12 and sarge which I believe are
> > > > > related to udev, so we might need to keep that updated as well.  There
> > > > > is also some breakage with powerpc and older versions of kernel-package;
> > > > > we'd need to determine what's necessary for that (my tests on i386 w/
> > > > > 2.6.12-1 went just fine w/ the kernel-package that's in sarge).
> > > > 
> > > > We need to backport kernel-package too, or i can submit a patch against the
> > > > kernel-patch in sarge ?
> > > 
> > > If we put 2.6.12 in volatile (sarge) then it should use the unified
> > > packaging scheme, so we won't have to bother with per-arch
> > > kernel-image/kernel-patch packages.
> > 
> > Wrong, linux-2.6 needs at least version 9.005 of kernel-package. So either we
> > backport it to sarge, or i provide a patch of the needed functionality for the
> > version of kernel-package in sarge.
> 
> Ok, now I understand what you are getting at. I think the sensible
> path to getting 2.6.12 in volatile is to use the existing linux-2.6
> packaging, and this if kernel-package needs to be go into volatile,
> thats fine by me.
> 
> On a related note, Using newer kernel-package to build the sarge
> kernels means a little bit of forward-porting work, but I think
> that is acceptable. I've already made the changes for i386 and powerpc
> and its in SVN.

Cool.

Friendly,

Sven Luther