Re: which kernel version for etch?
* Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [060510 11:31]:
> 1) Frans is hardly competent enough to give advice for this. He is biased by
> his personal feud over this with me, and i believe has not a good enough
> oversight of the problems involved to give a good technical advice. This is my
> opinion, though, so feel free to ignore it.
We need to discuss how to update the kernel for the next stable point
release. There is a stable release management BoF during Debconf, I'll
try to discuss it there. Of course, anyone can come to that BoF, and I'd
welcome anyone who helps us to resolve issues. (And this discussion
needs to happen anyways, independend of Etch.)
> 2) Any discussion about this issue done during the sarge time can be thrown
> in the trashcan. Remember the mess that was the kernel packages in sarge,
> and compare it to the current situation.
I didn't claim that Sarge and Etch are the same. However, one should and
could do the following: Which issues are problematic within Sarge? Could
that happen in Etch again? If the answer is no, I'm happy. If not, one
could try to fix it in time.
> 4) Back in the sarge time, a full d-i rebuild meant over a month of work. We
> have solved all the issues we had with this on the kernel side, and the
> delay is now caused by a lack of organisation on the d-i side, and their
> refusal to address the issue.
I'm going to discuss that with the d-i people. Hey, we could even do an
ad-hoc BoF on kernel&d-i. :)
> I believe it is the RMs place to have enough vision to find the best technical
> solution, and to make sure they happen, even if a few try to block it because
> they are afraid of change.
I think the RMs should only address issues if the maintainers / teams /
whoever fail to address them by themself. So for now, I'm not going to
force anybody to something. But I definitly will discuss issues with
different people during debconf.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: