On Friday 02 February 2007 06:49, Andreas Barth [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
What i am saying is: is it possible to in a lenny or lenny++ change the
way debian upgrades it's stable, just for the kernel?
There are few plans how to add one more kernel in the middle of Etchs
life time to support
* Luis Matos ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [070103 20:55]:
My proposal would be in point releases to change the kernel a bit to
support more hardware. That kernel would be tested, ofcourse.
What i am saying is: is it possible to in a lenny or lenny++ change the
way debian upgrades it's stable, just
Qui, 2007-01-04 às 20:22 -0500, Matthias Julius escreveu:
Luis Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There could be another archive called updates.debian.org where
selected packages go in in coordination with the security and stable
release teams.
that would be nicier ... but that's a bit
On Friday 05 January 2007 09:00, Luis Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I always compared debian stable with RHEL. They both target the same, i
think.
I agree that RHEL offers some significant benefits to users that Debian could
copy.
RHEL kernels are updated to support new hardware. This means
Daniel Baumann wrote:
however, if you want to have latest and greatest but with stability and
security as you know it from debian stable, then you are asking for the
impossible.
I think the problem that many people find with Debian is that they do
want the stability and security of stable,
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 11:00:16AM +, Paul Waring wrote:
I think the problem that many people find with Debian is that they do
want the stability and security of stable, but at the same time they
don't want to be a dozen releases behind upstream. I've seen many
occasions where there's
Qui, 2007-01-04 às 11:10 +, Dominic Hargreaves escreveu:
On Thu, Jan 04, 2007 at 11:00:16AM +, Paul Waring wrote:
I think the problem that many people find with Debian is that they do
want the stability and security of stable, but at the same time they
don't want to be a dozen
Luis Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Qui, 2007-01-04 às 11:10 +, Dominic Hargreaves escreveu:
backports.org is, to my mind, a perfect solution to this problem; it
allows you to selectively upgrade your favourite/important packages that
you need, whilst retaining the stable base on which
Qui, 2007-01-04 às 16:43 -0500, Matthias Julius escreveu:
Luis Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
Qui, 2007-01-04 às 11:10 +, Dominic Hargreaves escreveu:
backports.org is, to my mind, a perfect solution to this problem; it
allows you to selectively upgrade your favourite/important
Luis Matos wrote:
backports use testing as base for the packages.
setting up security for backports is a bit easier than for testing. Lot
less packages.
My point is, for example, when the security team lauches a DSA, it
always sees if both unstable and testing are afected. They already
Sex, 2007-01-05 às 00:57 +0100, Daniel Baumann escreveu:
Luis Matos wrote:
backports use testing as base for the packages.
setting up security for backports is a bit easier than for testing. Lot
less packages.
My point is, for example, when the security team lauches a DSA, it
always
Luis Matos [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
There could be another archive called updates.debian.org where
selected packages go in in coordination with the security and stable
release teams.
that would be nicier ... but that's a bit of volatile's purpose.
Although it is not very used.
You are
Hello
i m a debian user and like many other debian users there are things in
debian that i like and dislike.
I am going to get a round no for what i am asking, but i think it is a
good question.
Many users have complaints about in the middle of the life cycle, or
before the debian stable
Luis Matos wrote:
What i am saying is: is it possible to in a lenny or lenny++ change the
way debian upgrades it's stable, just for the kernel?
both things are already solved unofficially. there are kernel backports
[0], and kenshi makes stable-with-new-kernel installer-images[1].
so,
Qua, 2007-01-03 às 22:13 +0100, Daniel Baumann escreveu:
Luis Matos wrote:
What i am saying is: is it possible to in a lenny or lenny++ change the
way debian upgrades it's stable, just for the kernel?
both things are already solved unofficially. there are kernel backports
[0], and kenshi
Luis Matos wrote:
So, if we loose security and stability ... why use debian?
security and stability, that is excately what makes these backports
unofficial (more stability and bugs are an issue than security, though).
however, if you want to have latest and greatest but with stability and
Luis Matos wrote:
Many users have complaints about in the middle of the life cycle, or
before the debian stable release no longer supports new hardware.
Therefor a new kernel would be needed for d-i ( or an hardware
compatibility update for the kernel and modules).
My proposal would be in
Qua, 2007-01-03 às 22:28 +0100, Daniel Baumann escreveu:
Luis Matos wrote:
So, if we loose security and stability ... why use debian?
security and stability, that is excately what makes these backports
unofficial (more stability and bugs are an issue than security, though).
however, if
18 matches
Mail list logo
