On Tue, Jul 08, 2008 at 06:59:40AM +0000, maximilian attems wrote:
> On Mon, Jul 07, 2008 at 07:54:44PM +0200, Andreas Barth wrote:
> > * Pierre Habouzit (madcoder@debian.org) [080707 19:48]:
> > > Changing kernel at this point of the release would be too destructive,
> > > so unless there is a big fat problem in the .25 that the .26 should fix
> > > and is unbackportable (does such a beast even exist ?) I'm rather
> > > opposed to it. Note that the asm/page.h mess is still not fixed thanks
> > > to hppa.
> > >
> > > Disclaimer: it's my own opinion, I did not check what other Release Team
> > > member think about this.
> >
> > I agree with you, at least with my current informations.
>
> please read the changelog trunk on all the 2.6.26 fixes.
Huh, that's not really our work, you as the maintainer should help us
understand why we would like to deal with 3 months of FTBFS *right now*.
Not to mention the libata changes fjp talks about, that would probably
break many upgrades and for which there is no known solution.
> we have allways stated that .26 will be the release kernel.
The sole mail from the kernel team that I can find is[0]. We've seen
no updates from you since AFAICT. Given the content of the mail, and its
age, I don't see how we can know that.
> I don't understand why this would come as a surprise.
I'll start with reminding you that the toolchain is frozen and that
the kernel is part of it.
Now could you explain how changing kernel for a new upstream, with the
well known fact that one needs to wait for the .2/.3 to have a decent
working kernel (IOW in at least 2/3 weeks after the release) is not a
disruptive change[1]? Add testing migration to that, plus tied
transitions, then I expect a really good rationale from you to explain
why a 6-8 weeks delay in the toolchain freeze (IOW in the release
process) is acceptable and needed[2].
The fact that you're unable to understand that is quite worrying.
[0] http://lists.debian.org/debian-release/2007/04/msg00189.html
[1] e.g. have you done full scale archive rebuilds to show that a new
linux-libc-dev won't at least cause dozens of FTBFS like the
2.6.25 did ?
[2] and I'm pretty sure the d-i crew has alike reservations.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpJytPbuN_of.pgp
Description: PGP signature