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? 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. 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.
pgpj0c4xCxjvn.pgp
Description: PGP signature