[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Really 2.6.18?

Are we sure we want 2.6.18 as the kernel for etch? I reported two
bugs, #391929 and #391955, the first of which is readily
reproducible on 2.6.18 only (including ABI -2), meaning I cannot see
the problem with 2.6.17. #391955 is rather sporadic.

I know the kernel team has been incredibly busy, but I have received
zero reaction to my bug reports, which makes me think that they may
not have been seen? After all, I did originally assign them to the
kernel packages causing the problems: linux-image-2.6.18-1-amd64 and
linux-image-2.6.18-1-686, rather than the linux-2.6 source package;
they're reassigned now.

Do we really want to release 2.6.18 with etch? If I alone am already
able to identify two hard kernel freezes, there must be plenty
others, no? Do we want to lock out users into 2.6.18 with its bugs?

Wouldn't it be better to let 2.6.18 mature a bit more, provide
2.6.17 with etch, and let 2.6.18 follow with r1?

Please do not send copies of list mail to me; I read the list!
 .''`.   martin f. krafft <madduck@debian.org>
: :'  :  proud Debian developer, author, administrator, and user
`. `'`   http://people.debian.org/~madduck - http://debiansystem.info
  `-  Debian - when you have better things to do than fixing systems
"half a bee, philosophically,
 must ipso facto half not be."
                                                     -- monty python

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature (GPG/PGP)

Reply to: