Re: more current kernels for sarge in volatile?
Hi,
* Andreas Barth (aba@not.so.argh.org) [051229 13:12]:
> * Sven Luther (sven.luther@wanadoo.fr) [051229 13:05]:
> > > - Any security issues that happen need to be resolved - so we should
> > > limit the number of versions we offer.
> > Indeed, so the best is to have it be identic to either the etch or the sid
> > kernel (or preferably both). They in fact don't even need to be rebuilt as far
> > as i can tell, which makes offering them to users rather trivial, provided the
> > support packages are there.
> Well, if we want to keep the minor number in volatile, than either
> kernel development has to be stalled (which is perhaps a not too good
> idea), or the kernels will be different soon enough.
Waldi asked me how to parse this sentence. Thanks for asking.
The basic approach, as write earlier, is to choose one minor number for
volatile, and stay with it, until sarge is archived. If we go that way,
either the kernel development needs to be stalled in sid (which is a not
too good idea), or the kernels will be different soon enough.
Cheers,
Andi
--
http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/
Reply to: