On Thu, 2010-02-18 at 14:40 -0800, Bryce Harrington wrote: [...] > From apw's Kernel Summary, about why we are going with 2.6.32: > > The primary decision for the kernel team at UDS is to choose the base > kernel version for the release. For Lucid this will be 2.6.32. This > version has just released providing the maximum stabalisation time, it > also is expected to be the kernel of choice for long term releases > from other distributions.[1] > > If other distros are pulling the 2.6.33 drm on top of their 2.6.32 for > their long term releases as sounds like is the case[2], then this would > be a fairly significant divergence on our part for no real gain. [...] > 2: http://cvs.fedoraproject.org/viewvc/rpms/kernel/F-12/drm-upgrayedd.patch?view=log Fedora has been backporting drm (and nouveau) for a long time but it's not so clear what means for RHEL. I think this is something we will also consider doing in Debian. A year from now I expect nv to be dead and radeon UMS to be removed upstream, making it impractical to backport new hardware support. Given that, the maintenance burden for 2.6.33 drm should be lower. But this is really outside my area of expertise and certainly not my decision to make. We should probably also consider what this means for drm on the 2.6.32-stable branch. Should the drm developers still send patches there as well, where applicable? If all the distributions using 2.6.32 use the backported drm, should we ask Greg K-H to pull that? Ben. -- Ben Hutchings 73.46% of all statistics are made up.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part