On Tue, Jun 17, 2008 at 10:48:45AM -0700, Russ Allbery wrote: > Rainer Dorsch <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > > is anybody taking care of the openafs modules which do not compile any > > more with the etchnhalf kernel? > > > > The openafs modules in backports.org do compile though with the etchnhalf > > kernel. > > I'm quite happy to upload new packages for etchnhalf, but I'm afraid > they'd have to be just that -- packages of a newer upstream. The upstream > changes to support newer kernels are far too comprehensive for me to be > able to isolate them and apply them separately, and the result would be > poorly-tested and less stable than going to the current packages from > Debian testing. > > So... I guess my question is, what is the policy for etchnhalf for > packages that involve kernel modules? Is it fair game to upload a new > upstream version, unlike the normal stable release policies?
I think the answer would have to be creating a *new* package (e.g., openafs-source-etchnhalf) that can be installed next to the existing etch package. Otherwise we risk introducing regressions w/ the 2.6.18 kernel. I also would think that we'd want to provide an upgrade path in lenny that upgrades the etchnhalf specific package to the openafs-source (or whatever) in lenny - but there maybe reasons not to do this. I believe Daniel was working on a plan for this at one point, maybe he has a suggestion? -- dann frazier -- To unsubscribe, send mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED]