Re: Questions to all candidates: Release importance, release blockers, release quality
On Sat, Mar 03, 2007 at 02:33:17PM +0100, Sam Hocevar wrote:
> Has going back to a 2.6.17 kernel been considered?
No.
> There were probably reasons to accept 2.6.18 only four days before base
> was frozen,
Yes, IIRC it was the assessment of the kernel team that 2.6.17 would not be
supportable over the lifetime of etch.
> but that seems all the more questionable now that the new
> release itself didn't seem to fix any bugs, yet introduced new ones (such
> as #410497).
399113 is an RC bug that was fixed upstream in later 2.6.18.x patchlevels.
(The bug was only reported after 2.6.18 was uploaded, but I don't see any
positive evidence that the bug was new in 2.6.18.)
389232 was filed against 2.6.17 and was fixed upstream in 2.6.18.
The upstream diff may have been relevant to fixing bugs #394392 and 406055
via backports.
--
Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS
Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world.
vorlon@debian.org http://www.debian.org/
Reply to: