On Tue, 2005-08-09 at 10:43 -0400, Andres Salomon wrote: > Hi, > > So, was there any decision whether to provide 2.6.8+security in > volatile, or just backport linux-2.6 (2.6.12)? I need to do a 2.6.12 > backport, so if people are wanting 2.6.12 for volatile, I'll do that; > however, if people want 2.6.8+security in volatile, I'll just put 2.6.12 > in p.d.o/~dilinger, and make it known via apt-get.org. > > I've had reports of breakage with 2.6.12 and sarge which I believe are > related to udev, so we might need to keep that updated as well. There > is also some breakage with powerpc and older versions of kernel-package; > we'd need to determine what's necessary for that (my tests on i386 w/ > 2.6.12-1 went just fine w/ the kernel-package that's in sarge).
I think 2.6.12 is a better fit for what I think of as volatile - it adds support for a lot more hardware than our 2.6.8 update does. However, it would be good to stick our 3.0rX-targeted 2.6.8's somewhere where people can find them until we get them into a point release. So, how about we put both on volatile? -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
