On Tue, Aug 09, 2005 at 12:18:18PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > 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?
Thats pretty much what I have been thinking about. >From the 2.6.8 (and 2.4.27) side I would like to see: - updates to volatile (what is currently in SVN) - updates to security (the security-only portion of what is in SVN) Sorry I haven't released these, I'm natrually cautious about these things (i.e. its in my nature). I'd like to get a better handle on what is in the BTS before releasing. And I'd like to work out what to do in relation to source-version descrepancies in sarge: http://lists.debian.org/debian-kernel/2005/08/msg00272.html And for 2.6.12, I'd like to see what is currently in security + whatever backports are required. Let me know what I can do to help here. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
