Hi, On Donnerstag, 7. Mai 2009, maximilian attems wrote: > if you would have mentioned ath5k somewhere in your bugreport, your > intention would have been clearer. no we can't keep a hash table of every > linux-2.6 bug in our maintainers mems :P point taken, sorry. > i would have been happier to push the soon to come 2.6.30 for lenny+half, > but that looks impossible due to the multiple security support > that our team currently has to handle going from > oldstable 2.6.18 and 2.6.24, stable 2.6.26 and of course > the easy 2.6.29 in sid. hm, so do you think lenny+half will not happen or how should I understand that? I assume it will not be much easier once .30 is in sid, because 2 months later, there will be .31 in sid and you'd have to take care for 5 kernel versions again?! regards, Holger
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.