From: Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at)
Date: Thu 17 Feb 2005 - 19:53:44 GMT
On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:34:24PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> * Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at) wrote:
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 01:55:10PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > > Perhaps not as much as lkml, but Debian isn't developing the kernel,
> > > just trying to maintain it. A better comparison would be to the
> > > feedback RedHat or Suse gets.
> >
> > yes, and if you sum up all the distros feedback regarding
> > the kernel then you might compare it to the feedback the
> > mainline kernels get ... which IMHO is superior to any
> > distribution specific feedback ...
>
> Yet distribution kernels are almost *certainly* tested more and running
> on more end-user machines than vanilla kernels.
>
> > > My only issue is with you appearing to recommend kernels with serious
> > > known bugs over Debian kernels with a claim about more testing and
> > > because vserver patches patch cleanly with 'vanilla' (ie: released, imv)
> > > kernels.
> >
> > 90% of all 'supposed to be' linux-vserver issues are
> > debian issues (I'm still confident that this will change
> > in the near future), but all linux-vserver testing is
> > currently done with the mainline kernels and patches, so
> > it is natural that I recommend them over 'self' patching
> > them ontop of vendor specific patches, especially if they
> > tend to release newer kernels with older versions ;)
>
> This is an unfortunate consequence of the current state of the Debian
> vserver package, which fewer and fewer people are using (thankfully).
no comment ...
> Of course, the state of the Debian vserver package is a direct
> consequence of linux-vserver "unstable" labeling, which isn't exactly
> something we have a whole lot of say over, though I've been bitching
> about it for months anyway.
there is no 'unstable' in linux-vserver ;)
we have:
- "stable" which means:
the API and ABI will not change in any incompatible
way and new features will not be introduced lightly
(compare that to 2.2 or 2.4 kernel)
- "development" which means:
this is the place where new features can be found
it is intended for testing, evaluation and if you
are bold (or want to use the advantage) even production,
but do not expect the API and ABI to be changeless
or the patches to be well tested ...
(compare that to 2.6 and 2.6-rc*)
- "experimental" which means:
we added some new stuff or changed something out of
the blue, please give it a try in your test setup and
let us know what you think/find/discover ...
do not use it in production unless you know what you
are doing ...
(compare that to the bk releases or -mm)
> > > If people are really interested I'll provide a vserver patch
> > > which patches cleanly against Debian sources.
> >
> > would be great, just make sure that the following is true:
> >
> > - folks know where to get them, and do not adapt the
> > mainline patches themselves
> >
> > - 'your' patches keep up with 'our' development/bugfix
> > cycle (i.e. you track the prereleases and rcs too)
> >
> > - you get some decent testing on the 'adapted' debian
> > version before you put them in the wild
>
> I'll let the Debian vserver maintainer handle official Debian
> kernel-patch packages for vservers or help if he asks for it,
> which will follow your suggestions above.
> At the moment though, that's not me, so if I put a patch out
> there it'll be whatever I'm currently using (and hence, have
> tested) and people might have to dig a bit to find them.
> It also won't be in Debian kernel-patch format as I wouldn't
> really want people to get the wrong impression about those patches.
which would be?
> > this has worked before, so I'm pretty sure it is possible
> > again, and as I said, I have absolutely no problem with
> > a debian kernel patch, if it is maintained and tested ...
>
> I'd really like to see the official Debian packages updated and uploaded
> w/ decent kernel-patch packages but unfortunately we still have
> something of a stand off between the current Debian maintainer and
> linux-vserver upstream regarding the state of linux-vserver and if it's
> 'unstable' or 'stable'.
see above ... no idea what debian 'unstable' means
(maybe that it is supposed to break?)
> I thought this was being worked on and I'm a little disappointed at the
> lack of comment from those who'd been working on it.
me too, me too ...
best,
Herbert
> Stephen
> _______________________________________________
> Vserver mailing list
> Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
> http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver