Re: Scheduling 2.6.17-1
On Thu, Jun 22, 2006 at 10:37:38PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> * dann frazier (dannf@debian.org) [060619 20:51]:
> > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 06:56:50PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > On Sun, Jun 18, 2006 at 04:10:30PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > > The only technical issue is getting the meta packages to play well. I
> > > > think rough consensus was to leave the metapackages as-is in
> > > > linux-2.6.16 and either 1) drop meta packages from linux-2.6 >= 2.6.17
> > > > or 2) create separate metapackages for linux-2.6 (linux-image-2.6-686-sid,
> > > > for example).
> > >
> > > AFAIK the plan is the following:
> > > - linux-2.6 remains the metapackages, the point to the last available
> > > one.
> > > - linux-2.6.16 contains no metapackages.
> > > - linux-latest-2.6 or so contains the metapackages to match linux-2.6.16
> > > and have to go through t-p-u.
> >
> > fwiw, this doesn't provide a way for people to track the proposed etch
> > kernel in sid, which may reduce the number of testers of that kernel
> > prior to migration.
>
> Agreed.
>
> I think there should be agreement on which meta packages point to where
> before bumping meta packages version numbers, and we should find a way
> that encourages as many people as possible in both etch and unstable to
> test etch kernels.
yes and that is let people install the 2.6.17 kernel.
2.6.17 is still heavily considered as etch target.
--
maks
Reply to: