On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 01:03:07PM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, May 16, 2006 at 10:47:50AM +0200, maximilian attems wrote: <snipp> > > > > i disagree for the 2.6.16 choice, will point out the args as following. > > * sarge released with an more than one year old kernel > > that was bad as new hardware from the sarge release day on was not > > supported (d-i jump to the vc2 wget newer image and be fine sure, > > but that is not the support d-i customers deserve). > > especially bad as the 2.6.8 acpi was crap, the sata support almost null, > > vm bad under high load or mem pressure, nfs flacky.. > > Notice, that what you are advocating, means fast d-i kernel upgrades, as well > as fast out-of-tree modules rebuild.
we are already in a much _better_ state than for sarge, the unified package is a great heap forwards. it should make security support easier. even more import if the out-of-tree modules and d-i kernel upgrade is not completed we should choose latest possible deadline. as it will not be easier for an etch upgrade too. and please d-i first stage integration is wonderfull, so lots of praise for the d-i guys and their work. regards -- maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]