On Thu, Apr 13, 2006 at 11:20:38PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > On Thursday 13 April 2006 22:59, Steve Langasek wrote: > > I think etch should support 2.4 in the sense of "upgrade support only"; > > i.e., it should support 2.4 because we need to be able to install etch > > on systems running sarge 2.4 kernels, not because we'll provide support > > for 2.4 in etch.
> What about (sub)arches that currently do not yet support installing 2.6? These subarches would have to either get ported to 2.6, or not be supported for the release. Do you see any other options here? > If 2.4 is really going to be dropped for Etch except for upgrade purposes, > I'd very much like to see a formal (release) policy statement saying so. Well, then I think this will have to go in the next release update, unless someone steps forward to maintain 2.4 for etch before then. I think that's pretty unlikely, since the current kernel team appears unwilling to support 2.4, and any such support needs to include security support (or else it's not worth including it in stable). With no upstream security support for 2.4, it seems unlikely that anyone would consider that a worthwhile trade-off, and I don't think the security team is going to be willing to be left holding the bag. > If 2.4 kernels are really abandoned, it will mean that we (d-i) could > (should even) start cleaning out 2.4 related code and prod lagging > architectures into more speed where it comes to switching to 2.6. > Delaying a formal decision much longer will probably mean we'll be stuck > with 2.4 whether we like it or not. Rather, I think it would mean people would be upset about 2.4 being dropped with little official notice -- but yes, this should be announced sooner rather than later. -- Steve Langasek Give me a lever long enough and a Free OS Debian Developer to set it on, and I can move the world. [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.debian.org/
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
