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

Re: more current kernels for sarge in volatile?

On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 07:56:18AM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> Sven Luther wrote:
> > Obviously, from a kernel maintainer perpespective, the one that makes more
> > sense is the latest one we are working on, which will always be the more
> > actively maintained one and as a consequence the one of more interest to the
> > users, not to mention the fact that for the users to have any benefit, they
> > need the latest kernel, not really one which is newer than the sarge one, but
> > still a couple of month old.
> Many sarge users have problems installing to SATA drives.

well, what do you expect, they probably have hardware newer than the 2.6.8
kernel when it was release back then.

> Any kernel newer than the 2.6.8 in sarge will work better for many of

Yes, but i don't see you volunteering to do the work to maintain
yet-another-kernel-tree-fork and its security update.

> these users. 2.6.12 has been reported to work for users who failed with
> 2.6.8. While the absolute latest will probably support the most new
> hardware, it also *doesn't currently boot past the initramfs* on a
> lot of other hardware.

Well, 2.6.12 is the etch kernel, so it fits in well with my plan, and it is
guaranteed we don't move 2.6.1[45] into testing until all major issues are
solved, so staying with the etch kernel always is a good compromise,
especially as we already have etch security, don't we ? 

> Your cost/benefit analysis should not stop with "whatever's newest".

Well, all i really said, is that the kernel team is not interested in
maintaining yet another fork, and that nearly following either the etch or sid
kernel (and associated packages) is the only solution possible. I hear your
and Frans's argument that the sid kernel may not be viable, but i believe the
etch kernel would fit in just fine, and i would like to hear real arguments to
the contrary if you are going to claim this is not an option :)


Sven Luther

Reply to: