On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 01:44:56 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: > Andres Salomon wrote: >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 00:11:49 +0200, Thiemo Seufer wrote: >> >> > Andres Salomon wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> >> >> I'm going to suggest renaming our 2.6.12 source package from >> >> linux-kernel-2.6.12 to linux-kernel-2.6. Thoughts? Dann Frazier and I >> >> have discussed this on IRC a little bit, and come up w/ the following >> >> points.. >> >> >> >> * Source: linux-kernel-2.6, Version: 2.6.12-1 >> >> * As long as each arch is in synch, there are no GPL issues with older >> >> binary packages being in the archive w/out the source. >> >> * Nicer for bugs; http://packages.qa.debian.org/l/linux-kernel-2.6.html >> >> gets us all bugs for 2.6.12+ kernels, versus having to look at >> >> linux-kernel-2.6.12.html, linux-kernel-2.6.13.html, etc. >> >> * Older kernels get removed; no need to ask for manual removal of >> >> linux-kernel-2.6.12 after 2.6.13 becomes available for all archs. >> >> However, we lose the ability to have multiple 2.6's in a release, >> >> which sounds like a win to me; we shouldn't be doing multiple 2.6 >> >> releases anymore anyways, the security team has made it clear they >> >> don't want to support multiple kernels, and it would be extra pressure >> >> for all archs to keep up. >> > >> > This makes it unlikely to ever get working mips/mipsel kernels in the >> > single source package. >> >> Perhaps you could give a reason why this is the case? > > Because I'm currently at 2.5 of ~8 subarchitectures working for 2.6.12, > and I hear already talk about 2.6.13. > >
I wasn't aware that you worked on mips/mipsel stuff for older kernels in the archive anyways, except for the case when we decide to stabilize on a certain version for a release. In any case, now that experimental is autobuilt, we can upload a new kernel to it and stabilize architectures, while simultaneously updating the older version in sid -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
