On Mon, Jul 02, 2007 at 05:50:13PM +0100, Jonathan Underwood wrote:
On 02/07/07, Dave Jones <davej(a)redhat.com> wrote:
> There's another reason I'd like to get this done for F8.
> I'd still really like us to ship 2.6.23 for f8, but with the shorter
> devel schedule, it's unclear if it's going to land upstream in time.
> We've shipped -rc's as GA kernels before, but I always felt 'dirty'
for
> doing this (especially when we name them incorrectly).
> Shipping it with 'rc3' or whatever in the title seems a little more
> honest at least about what we're shipping, and at the same time,
> it prevents bad reviewers from writing "Fedora still ships with a 2.6.22
> kernel".
Sort of related to this - it's (usually? often?) the case that the
shipped kernel is based on a "stable" point release - eg. on this F-7
box, the kernel is based on 2.6.21.2 according to the %changelog, and
yet the kernel rpm is kernel-2.6.21-1.3228. Would it not be sensible
to also add that last point number?
Sounds sensible. I did try a long time ago (when 2.6.x.y first began)
and it broke something which I now forget, but it's probably something
that just needs a bit more thought.
ps. Sorry to Dave for sending this mail to him alone rather than the
list
pps. Why does this list not set the Reply-To to the list rather than
the message sender?
http://www.unicom.com/pw/reply-to-harmful.html
Dave
--
http://www.codemonkey.org.uk