From: Stephen Frost (sfrost_at_snowman.net)
Date: Thu 17 Feb 2005 - 20:36:57 GMT
* Herbert Poetzl (herbert_at_13thfloor.at) wrote:
> On Thu, Feb 17, 2005 at 02:34:24PM -0500, Stephen Frost wrote:
> > 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)
Which I assume is the '1.2' release set that pretty much everyone I've
seen recommend against using...
> - "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*)
I assume this is associated with the 1.9 set of releases, which is what
pretty much everyone seems to recommend using, and is what most of us
are running I believe.
> - "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)
Near as I can tell these aren't even released as anything, and I'm
guessing you're talking about ngnet stuff here.
> > 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?
That they're official Debian packages, of course.
> > > 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?)
s/unstable/development/ I believe to get the correct lingo for
linux-vserver. Perhaps it'd be better if it was called unstable, 'cause
it seems very much like Debian/unstable, perhaps not perfect, but
nothing ever is and it works damn well for being called unstable.
Stephen
_______________________________________________
Vserver mailing list
Vserver_at_list.linux-vserver.org
http://list.linux-vserver.org/mailman/listinfo/vserver