Re: more current kernels for sarge in volatile?
On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 11:06:47AM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote:
> Hi,
>
> at the time where sarge was released, the question was raised multiple
> times whether we can put newer kernels into volatile. As it is now about
> halfways between release of sarge and release of etch, it is time to
> reconsider whether to put an newer kernel into volatile or not.
>
> Reasons to add a newer kernel version are AFAIUI better hardware support
> (especially things like SATA), and lots of smaller issues.
>
> There are of course good reasons against also: Compatibility with programs
> in sarge (think e.g. about udev), more work in case of security updates
> etc. And, I don't want to support more than one kernel version per major
> version in volatile, so if we decide to go with a specific 2.6-version, I
> want to stick with that. About the minor version - I don't have any real
> opinion which one to take. Also, of course I would like to take the version
> that the maintainers (i.e. you) want to have.
>
>
> Any comments, additions, cluebats for me?
The main problem are the too strict rules for building in volatile, which stop
us from uploading the etch/sid kernels and associated packages to it.
We would need to build the kernels with a newer version of kernel-package,
which could be uploaded to volatile too, and include newer versions of udev,
yaird and initramfs-tools, altough i believe the later is more complicated in
term of dependencies (klibc, mklibs, busybox i think).
Because of this limitation of volatile, we kind of decided it would make more
sense to provide kernels from kernel.debian.net (should be kernel.debian.org
really), and hope that you would be able to provide autobuilder power to it,
altough seing that even experimental is not being autobuilt correctly for
kernels, this is not something which i believe will happen without work.
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: