* Sven Luther ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) [060103 23:02]: > On Tue, Jan 03, 2006 at 10:31:38PM +0100, Andreas Barth wrote: > > the other hand side, the difference is only one week - and if nothing is > > broken by that, we can freeze the kernel at N-110 also. > i think comparing the kernel with the toolchain is overkill, if nothing else a > last minute change in the toolchain will need a kernel recompile anyway maybe. > I do confess that i read June 30 at first, and this seemed much less > acceptable to me.
well, the kernel is definitly about the same level as the toolchain and standard/base - changes can have very easily impact on the installer, and it is not an option to remove the package if it is broken. > > > > N-105 = Mon 14 Aug 06: d-i RC [directly after base freeze] > > > > N-45 = Wed 18 Oct 06: general freeze [about 2 months after base > > > > freeze, d-i RC] > > > > N = Mon 4 Dec 06: release [1.5 months for the general freeze] > > > > > > We will have a kernel which is outdated by two versions at release time > > > with > > > this plan, since there are about 1 kernel upstream release every 2 month. > > > > Well, if we want to release with a newer kernel, we need to make sure > > d-i doesn't stumble over it. Experience tells us that there are enough > > What experience ? I was speaking about the installer. And usually there are lots of last-minute changes that need to go in - not only new languages, but lots of other small minor, but still important bug fixes. > > Also, the kernel will be outdated sooner or later anyways - so, if after > > one year the kernel is 12 or 14 months old is not too much a difference. > > Hehe, me runs sid kernels installed almost as is on all my sarge systems > indeed, just with rebuild yaird and mininmally backported udev. Well, but then an older kernel doesn't hurt you? :P > Indeed, but you have only the sarge experience to go by, and taking the sarge > experience on this is hardly fair to the huge amount the kernel team has > devoted to streamline the process. Of course, we have seen that the kernel build process is way more mature now. Nobody doubts that. > Also, i don't really believe joeyh and fjp > are really the relevant maintainers with regard to the debian kernel and its > application, since they lack the vision of how things could go better, or more > thruthfully, probably lack the time and motivation to think really about the > issue, and why should they, it is the kernel team jobs :) Well, they are definitly the relevant people for the installer. And, frankly speaking, at least I have good experience with both of them. > d-i is only a part of the problem anyway, and i believe the less problematic. > out-of-tree modules and third-party patches are a worse mess. Hm, which out-of-tree modules do you consider to be release critical, i.e. we cannot release without them? Cheers, Andi -- http://home.arcor.de/andreas-barth/ -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]