On Thu, Dec 29, 2005 at 01:31:08PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > Hi, > > * Andreas Barth ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051229 13:12]: > > * Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [051229 13:05]: > > > > - Any security issues that happen need to be resolved - so we should > > > > limit the number of versions we offer. > > > > Indeed, so the best is to have it be identic to either the etch or the sid > > > kernel (or preferably both). They in fact don't even need to be rebuilt > > > as far > > > as i can tell, which makes offering them to users rather trivial, > > > provided the > > > support packages are there. > > > Well, if we want to keep the minor number in volatile, than either > > kernel development has to be stalled (which is perhaps a not too good > > idea), or the kernels will be different soon enough. > > Waldi asked me how to parse this sentence. Thanks for asking. > > The basic approach, as write earlier, is to choose one minor number for > volatile, and stay with it, until sarge is archived. If we go that way, > either the kernel development needs to be stalled in sid (which is a not > too good idea), or the kernels will be different soon enough.
I believe this will be useless past a few month after you fixed the minor number, and i believe not something the kernel team is interested in supporting. Friendly, Sven Luther -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
