Re: removing 2.2 from the archive?
* dann frazier (dannf@dannf.org) [060526 15:14]:
> On Mon, May 22, 2006 at 01:24:52PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > On Sun, May 21, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Christian T. Steigies wrote:
> > > need some further discussion among the m68k folks... does this also mean
> > > that an etch installation will require a 2.6 kernel to run on the machine?
> > > Some of the m68k buildds (most macs) are still running 2.2.25, the two Atari
> > > Falcons run 2.4.
> >
> > The long term aim is indeed to release etch with only 2.6 kernels, which means
> > no 2.4 but also no 2.2 kernel.
> >
> > Now, the removal of the 2.2 kernel should follow the same roadmap as what was
> > discussed for the 2.4 kernels, and i suppose that for m68k purpose, you can
> > substitute '2.4' with '2.2 or 2.4' in all those emails.
>
> There has been no DSA for a 2.2 kernel to date in the lifetime of
> woody/sarge (counting on my recollection here, I'm currently offline),
> so I can't see how we can continue shipping it unless someone steps up
> to handle this. Of course, you could always request insecure status
> from the release team (with proper release notes, etc).
As far as I know, 2.2 isn't even supported by glibc any more. If that is
the case, we definitly shouldn't ship with 2.2. Also, anyone is free to
open a kernel-2-2.debian.net repository - and I would be willing to
mention that in the release notes. I however doubt we should deliver 2.2
kernels inside of etch. Heck, we even consider to drop 2.4.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: