Jaunty status so far.

[Luke Yelavich]

On Mon, Feb 02, 2009 at 09:23:54PM CET, Khashayar Naderehvandi wrote:
> And I've been wondering whether it would be a good idea to maintain a
> 2.6.26-rt kernel, particularly if .28 doesn't turn out too well after
> all. We could be joining efforts with 64studio, for example, when it
> comes to realtime kernel packaging and maintaining. Judging from one
> thread I stumbled into [3], it seems they're aiming for a 2.6.26
> kernel.

The real issue here is hardware suport parity with the generic 2.6.28 kernel in jaunty. Users will find that hardware that they have may work with 2.6.28, but not with 2.6.26. its also very hard to keep restricted modules/DKMS packages working with two different kernel versions as well.

I'd rather we really push for 2.6.28, and again if its not usable, have it as an option, but not by default.

Luke
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: Digital signature
Url : https://lists.ubuntu.com/archives/ubuntu-studio-devel/attachments/20090202/3fa55e8f/attachment.pgp