Re: Kernel 2.4 for etch or not

[Horms <horms@verge.net.au>]

Hi Holger,

thanks for raising this important issue and sorry for being slow to reply.

I think that I agree with pretty much everything you wrote, so I won't
reiterate that here. However, I'd like to take the opportunity to
clarify my position with regards to 2.4 in Etch.

When I first became involved with debian-kernel, leading up to Sarge,
my main interest was in making sure that 2.4 was in good shape. This is
because at that time I felt that there was a very strong audience for
it, and that it was essential for Sarge's success. As many people
had already shifted their focus to 2.6 I felt there was a bit of a
vacuum, and I was happy to fill it.

However, leading up to Etch, as we now are, I really feel that for the
various reasons you listed, the support burden of 2.4 in Etch is heavier
than its benefit. So, except for architectures that absolutely must have
it, we should drop 2.4. I believe 2.2 was in Sarge for some
architectures, and probably will also have it for Etch. So this idea is
by no means new.

To be quite honest, when people like Ted T'so advise me that 2.4 isn't
really viable for Etch, I tend to take notice.

If, the release maintainers decide that we really must keep 2.4,
then moving forward to 2.4.3X with the new unified packaging
that is seen in current linux-2.6 packages is the next best option.
Holger, I guess that responsibility would fall on your shoulders
for now, as I unfortunately do not have the time to devote to it.
Hopefully some more volunteers can be found.

Failing that, keep updating 2.4.27, as we already are for Sarge
security, and include that.

-- 
Horms