Re: which kernel version for etch?
On Sat, May 13, 2006 at 06:23:46AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 05:08:34PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 01:31:30PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > On Fri, May 12, 2006 at 09:40:37AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > > On Thu, May 11, 2006 at 05:00:03PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > > > I don't know what Bastian was intending; but the scenario I mentioned
> > > > > was to:
> > > > > 1) Upload linux-2.6.16 to sid w/o metapackages
> > > > > 2) Let linux-2.6.16 migrate to sid
> > > > 3) Upload linux-latest-2.6 via t-p-u
> > > >
> > > > > Either way, yes. We should remove linux-2.6 from testing once
> > > > > linux-2.6.16 enters.
> > > >
> > > > Bastian
> > >
> > > I am not sure i like this, this means we separate the metapackages out of the
> > > common package again. Is this a good thing ? We made the inverse step earlier.
> >
> > Yes, I'd rather see us keep the metapackages bundled in linux-2.6.16.
> > The fewer packages that have to be updated for a security update, the
> > better.
> >
> > Of course, I do see the benefit to Bastian's suggestion - we'd have
> > working metapackages for both sid & etch that pull in the latest
> > available in that dist. My proposal leaves sid meta packages pointing
> > at the latest kernel for etch.
>
> Mmm. Do we really want the default for sid to be something that will maybe
> never be going into etch ?
I think so; there is a class of users (myself included) who want to
run/test the latest and greatest on some machines, and its nice when
it automatically updates. Users that just want to run what will go
into testing should, well, just run testing :)
--
dann frazier
Reply to: