Re: Really 2.6.18?
trimmed release again from cc.
please do not spam our hard working release manager.
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:05:20AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> martin f krafft <madduck@debian.org> writes:
>
> > Are we sure we want 2.6.18 as the kernel for etch? I reported two
> > bugs, #391929 and #391955, the first of which is readily
> > reproducible on 2.6.18 only (including ABI -2), meaning I cannot see
> > the problem with 2.6.17. #391955 is rather sporadic.
> >
> > I know the kernel team has been incredibly busy, but I have received
> > zero reaction to my bug reports, which makes me think that they may
> > not have been seen? After all, I did originally assign them to the
> > kernel packages causing the problems: linux-image-2.6.18-1-amd64 and
> > linux-image-2.6.18-1-686, rather than the linux-2.6 source package;
> > they're reassigned now.
>
> At least for XEN 2.6.17 has serious problems. I have three machines
> that are unable to boot with 2.6.17 and them work fine with 2.6.18.
the choice is out of discussion,
2.6.17 is not supported since long.
and we focus on a good 2.6.18 release, look at the changelogs.. :)
> > Do we really want to release 2.6.18 with etch? If I alone am already
> > able to identify two hard kernel freezes, there must be plenty
> > others, no? Do we want to lock out users into 2.6.18 with its bugs?
>
> Well, we'll probably need to rely on bugfix releases of 2.6.18 after
> etch is release too.
well we want also a newer linux-image for etch in a mid-term release.
that was not possible for sarge due to the heavy devfs dependency
of core tools like initrd or d-i and so on..
best regards
--
maks
Reply to: