Re: Really 2.6.18?
On Fri, Nov 10, 2006 at 11:33:39AM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> maximilian attems <maks@sternwelten.at> writes:
<snipp>
> > 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..
>
> But Maks, how we'll ensure that there's no regressions for our users?
>
> Or the idea is to suply two installation medias? One with released
> kernel and other with the "new" kernel? That would be great but would
> push a lot of more work on d-i team.
it is meant to not be the default, but easily choosable like it was
for sarge to blindy type linux26
this allows to support hardware for etch that is not yet released and
wouldn't be supported by 2.6.18. aka sexy new stuff :)
as a side topic you mentioned fixes in grub, please don't forget
about the optional existing .bak initrd entries?
regards
--
maks
Reply to: