Am Wed, 28 Jul 2010 11:30:02 -0700 schrieb Sage Weil: > On Wed, 28 Jul 2010, Thomas Mueller wrote: >> Am Wed, 28 Jul 2010 10:02:19 -0700 schrieb Sage Weil: >> >> > BTW, the Debian kernel guys would rather include the ceph module in >> > the main kernel package than include a dkms package directly in >> > Debian. That means maintaining a backport branch specifically for >> > 2.6.32 (the squeeze kernel). >> > >> > (We should still have this dkms package available on the ceph site, >> > of course!) >> >> would be cool if they included it in squeeze kernel. but i'm bit >> surprised. squeeze freeze is expected late august (http:// >> lists.debian.org/debian-devel-announce/2010/06/msg00002.html) and >> debian folks normaly don't bump versions and only do bugfixing after a >> release. >> >> so I would expect that squeeze has to include a stable ceph.ko and >> stable server side too. And as the freeze seems to be approaching fast >> this would be a tough schedule. > > I'm not sure what their criteria are there... the ceph-dkms ITP is > 589562, > > http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=589562 I could not find any policy manual about a debian stable series. if they do accept larger changes after a release it would be nice if they include it. if they do not accept more than bugfixing I could imaging that the provided module may be sometime (think of squeeze-release+1year) incompatible/worthless with ceph server side? pro ceph-dkms: if squeeze is released newer versions of ceph-dkms can be easyly provided by backports.org as I see, server side is also on its way, cool! (http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=506040) - Thomas -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe ceph-devel" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
