Re: Linux 3.0
> We could delay uploading it to unstable for a while if this is necessary
> to allow time for fixes to userland.
Would this mean we wouldn't have it in Experimental either?
Adnan
On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> wrote:
> Please reply to debian-kernel as originally requested.
>
> On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 00:09 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote:
>> OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du lundi 30 mai 2011, vers 18:52, Ben
>> Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> disait :
>>
>> > As you may have seen, the next version of the Linux kernel will be 3.0
>> > (or 3.0.0). There is no significant API change; this just shortens the
>> > version string and marks the start of the third decade of Linux.
>>
>> Are we sure that the change won't be reverted later in the RC cycle?
>> This change will break a lot of software that rely on detecting the
>> kernel version to make some decisions.
>
> Then it was broken already.
>
>> Maybe the 3.0.0 could be released as 2.6.40 to avoid unnecessary breakages?
>
> I would strongly oppose doing such renumbering in Debian. It is
> possible that Linus changes the version back to that, but I doubt it.
> We could delay uploading it to unstable for a while if this is necessary
> to allow time for fixes to userland. (But I do not want to wait for the
> many OOT modules which will undoubtedly break.)
>
> Ben.
>
>> I do not mean not working on supporting 3.x numbering correctly as soon
>> as possible.
>
> --
> Ben Hutchings
> Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
>
Reply to: