Re: Fixes to Etch kernel for use in a Xen domain 0
- To: debian-kernel <debian-kernel@lists.debian.org>
- Subject: Re: Fixes to Etch kernel for use in a Xen domain 0
- From: Ian Campbell <ijc@hellion.org.uk>
- Date: Tue, 02 Sep 2008 09:22:35 +0100
- Message-id: <[🔎] 1220343755.29438.27.camel@zakaz.uk.xensource.com>
- In-reply-to: <20080828183220.GA19567@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
- References: <1219874028.2441.21.camel@localhost.localdomain> <20080827232053.GB6758@colo.lackof.org> <20080828073653.GB9397@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org> <20080828172219.GB15435@colo.lackof.org> <20080828183220.GA19567@wavehammer.waldi.eu.org>
On Thu, 2008-08-28 at 20:32 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 11:22:19AM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > On Thu, Aug 28, 2008 at 09:36:53AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > > 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?
> >
> > My two concerns with that are:
> > * Dropping support for a package in a stable release (which we
> > currently only do due to unforeseen circumstances) and
> > * forcing users to upgrade to a new upstream version within a stable
> > release.
>
> So nothing in addition to my concerns. So we are back at the decision
> between:
> - Full support, which currently noone wants to handle.
> - Support until we have something new, which breaks with some rules.
> - No support.
>
> I know its not really pretty, but for now its the best we can get IMHO.
I agree (FWIW, I'm only a bit player round here...)
As much as I'd like to help with offering full support I think
realistically I'm not going to have that much time to give to it, at
least not with any guarantee.
I'm not sure that requiring users to upgrade to a new upstream version
within a stable release is all that heinous _iff_ it is well documented
in the original release notes as Bastian suggests. Assuming the andahalf
thing continues with Lenny (why wouldn't it?) it seems like a perfect
vehicle for something like that.
Ian.
--
Ian Campbell
It's hard to keep your shirt on when you're getting something off your chest.
Reply to: