On Wed, Aug 27, 2008 at 05:20:53PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > I'm not aware of any well-formed consensus yet - though there are > several ideas. I'll caveat this by saying I don't follow Xen > development at all, and didn't participate in the previous thread > about this (very busy at the time), but I do think the approach that > would be best for our users is to ship a 2.6.18-based kernel in > lenny - aka, Bastian's Option 5: > http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2008/07/msg00476.html What is the problem with Option 4? > Since its neither a >= important bug for etch, nor obviously safe for > existing installs, I don't think it'd be an option for 'etch'. It is safe for existing installs. It only adds a new parameter which changes the behavour if set. > > If this is unacceptable (probably?) then are there any other > > options/plans/ideas for providing an updated 2.6.18 domain 0 kernel? I > > hear Bastian has a repo somewhere? > Yeah, he maintains a branch under people/waldi, iirc. Not sure where > the builds are though. deb http://kernel-archive.buildserver.net/debian-kernel/waldi/xen-extra all main Bastian -- You can't evaluate a man by logic alone. -- McCoy, "I, Mudd", stardate 4513.3
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature