Re: Really 2.6.18?
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 02:13:49PM +0100, maximilian attems wrote:
> 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.. :)
Me supports maks in this. The powerpc 2.6.17 is missing half a dozen fixes
prsent in 2.6.18, and worse, i don't even remember all of them. And this is
not counting the various fixes which are upstream stuff.
It would be a major backporting effort to revert to 2.6.17 now, and would
probably mean a delay of the release of a couple of months, if nothing else.
As Maks said, 2.6.17 is dead, and the only reason for it to be still in the
archive is that we are waiting for the d-i rc1 release to kill it. I
personally would not have waited, and released rc1 with 2.6.18 directly, but i
am not the d-i release manager, so ...
Friendly,
Sven Luther
Reply to: