On Sun, 22 Jan 2006, Michael Loftis wrote:
> Yes, I realise all of this. But everyone seems to get this damned
> territorial attitude that I want to see kernel development stopped,
> quite the opposite. All I want to see is a stable target for certain
> windows of time. So that way when bugs are fixed that are trivial
> there's a place to go without upgrading scads of userland stuff or
> worrying about lots of unrelated change.
I believe that, if you want to maintain a 2.6.13.y (for example) tree
after the -stable team has moved on, you'd be perfectly welcome, and could
probably even do it on kernel.org. It might not even be that hard to get
the necessary patches, given that -stable sees all of the long-standing
stability/security bugs (so you can watch that list for ones you should
include patches for), and the regressions will probably mostly be fixed
before you get the series.
I think that the reason that nobody's done this already isn't that it
would be very difficult, but that distributions don't actually see a value
in using old kernel series and are happy with -stable. If you have a
reason to stick with a series longer, it might be worth the trouble to
you.
-Daniel
*This .sig left intentionally blank*
-
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to [email protected]
More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at http://www.tux.org/lkml/
[Index of Archives]
[Kernel Newbies]
[Netfilter]
[Bugtraq]
[Photo]
[Stuff]
[Gimp]
[Yosemite News]
[MIPS Linux]
[ARM Linux]
[Linux Security]
[Linux RAID]
[Video 4 Linux]
[Linux for the blind]
[Linux Resources]
