> We could delay uploading it to unstable for a while if this is necessary > to allow time for fixes to userland.
Would this mean we wouldn't have it in Experimental either? Adnan On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 11:12 PM, Ben Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> wrote: > Please reply to debian-kernel as originally requested. > > On Tue, 2011-05-31 at 00:09 +0200, Vincent Bernat wrote: >> OoO Lors de la soirée naissante du lundi 30 mai 2011, vers 18:52, Ben >> Hutchings <b...@decadent.org.uk> disait : >> >> > As you may have seen, the next version of the Linux kernel will be 3.0 >> > (or 3.0.0). There is no significant API change; this just shortens the >> > version string and marks the start of the third decade of Linux. >> >> Are we sure that the change won't be reverted later in the RC cycle? >> This change will break a lot of software that rely on detecting the >> kernel version to make some decisions. > > Then it was broken already. > >> Maybe the 3.0.0 could be released as 2.6.40 to avoid unnecessary breakages? > > I would strongly oppose doing such renumbering in Debian. It is > possible that Linus changes the version back to that, but I doubt it. > We could delay uploading it to unstable for a while if this is necessary > to allow time for fixes to userland. (But I do not want to wait for the > many OOT modules which will undoubtedly break.) > > Ben. > >> I do not mean not working on supporting 3.x numbering correctly as soon >> as possible. > > -- > Ben Hutchings > Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse. > -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/BANLkTik=p231s1nwxah+jm9+fktf5bc...@mail.gmail.com
