Re: Kernel version for stretch
* Ben Hutchings <ben@decadent.org.uk> [2016-02-14 15:58]:
> > * If we stick with 4.4, the Debian Linux maintainers receives
> > practically no advantage from Greg's LTS effort.
>
> No, we would benefit from that but this is very early to freeze the
> kernel and we would need to do a lot of work on backporting hardware
> support.
Based on my gut feeling, backporting stuff into 4.4 would be more work
than doing a long-term stable release based on 4.9. Based on your
experience, do you think that's accurate, Ben?
(I think it would be different if we were to use 4.4 when 4.5 was the
current kernel, but 4.4 to 4.10 is going to be a huge delta.)
So imho we should get 4.9 into unstable, agree at some point on 4.9 vs
4.10 and if we agree on 4.10 then get 4.10-rc releases into unstable,
and ask people to test daily d-i images based on that.
(Of course I should mention that I'm not part of the kernel team. But
speaking as an ARM porter, I think going with 4.4 would be a disaster.
We're going to see a lot of changes this year, especially on ARM64.)
Another option would be to go with 4.4 and make it easy for d-i to
support kernels from backports (something we should do anyway). But I
think releasing with a 1.5 year old kernel is just going to add to the
"Debian is out of date" view.
--
Martin Michlmayr
http://www.cyrius.com/
Reply to: