Re: removing 2.4 from etch/sid
On Fri, May 19, 2006 at 06:19:21AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> Maybe more interesting would be a list of all those arches and subarches who
> still have problems with 2.6, and a list of issues, so people with
> interest to work on them, can help out.
Yes, I think both are interesting and could crosslink. This page would
list the packages that need go be removed, and a terse explanation of
why they need to stay. The terse explanation could include a link to
a page that has more details about what the problems are. Both would
be very good to announce broadly (hopefully by piggybacking on a
release team update) so that people know what work is needed.
Personally, the way I'd prefer to track this is to file a bug for
removal of each of these packages now, but somehow mark them as "on
hold".
For example:
Bug #X: "ftp.d.o: Please remove kernel-image-2.4-apus from sid/etch"
Bug #Y: "d-i: stop using kernel-image-2.4-apus"
Bug #Z: "linux-2.6: Add support for apus"
Where bug Y blocks bug X.
However, I imagine the ftp masters wouldn't appreciate us filing bugs
that we don't want them to fix yet.
> This could also be doubled in a list of issues which are debian specific
> patches also, and not yet merged upstream, with some kind of plan or eta or
> whatever for such a merge.
Sure. I don't have any insight into the existing problems (other than
indirectly based on what you, Thiemo & Martin have mentioned here).
So I'm probably not the best person to start such a page.
By the way, sorry for the crudeness of that wiki page; I had to leave
before I finished cleaning it up & figured I'd just commit it first.
--
dann frazier
Reply to: