Re: Clean up older Kernels

[Bradley Chapman <kakadu_croc@yahoo.com>]

Mr. Garzik,

--- Jeff Garzik <jgarzik@pobox.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 12:32:46PM -0800, Bradley Chapman wrote:
> > Mr. Garzik,
> > 
> > > > On Mon, Dec 01, 2003 at 08:40:47PM +0100, Thomas Babut wrote:
> > > > Hi,
> > > >
> > > > perhaps my question is unusual, but why do you not clean up the older Linux
> > > > Kernels?
> > > >
> > > > The Kernel 2.0.39 is the last stable one, but there is also a 2.0.40-rc6. So
> > > > why not releasing it as stable 2.0.40 (final)? And Alan Cox isn't active any
> > > > more for some time and the ac-Patches are very old. They could be removed,
> > > > or not?
> > >
> > > 2.0.x has a maintainer, David Winehall(sp?) IIRC. Poke him... :)
> > >
> > > I agree, might as well put out 2.0.40...
> > 
> > I've been wondering about this too, but I was afraid to ask first :-)
> > 
> > When 2.6 is officially released as a stable kernel and 2.4 is relegated to
> security/
> > bugfix-only status, what will happen to 2.0 and 2.2? Obviously, they won't be
> > totally ignored for support reasons (not everyone uses 2.4 - see
> counter.li.org),
> > but what will Mr. Anvin do to the frontpage of kernel.org?
> 
> I don't see there being any radical change...  Alan still puts out 2.2
> security fixes occasionally, and the older Linux kernels will _always_
> be archived on ftp.kernel.org.  They're not going away... :)

And they shouldn't -- there's no reason for them to disappear from the site.
I'm just wondering if Mr. Anvin will reorganize things so that the hierarchy
of kernels is: 2.6, 2.6-pre, 2.6-ac, 2.4, 2.4-pre, 2.2, 2.2-pre, 2.0, 2.0-pre.

Or will he leave things as they are?

Brad


=====


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Free Pop-Up Blocker - Get it now
http://companion.yahoo.com/