Bug#760114: transition: kfreebsd-kernel-headers
Control: tags -1 moreinfo
On 31/08/14 23:55, Steven Chamberlain wrote:
> Package: release.debian.org
> User: release.debian.org@packages.debian.org
> Usertags: transition
>
> Hi, This is not a mere transition but our ambition to use kFreeBSD 10.1
> as our kernel version for jessie.
>
> This is primarily driven by the FreeBSD 10.1 release schedule; they
> have gone into a 'code slush' which resembles Debian's early freeze,
> with a final freeze date of 5th September, then they begin beta
> builds. That applies to their entire distribution, not just their
> kernel.
> http://www.freebsd.org/releases/10.1R/schedule.html
>
> A major consequence of their release schedule is that 10.0 security
> support will have ended by the time Jessie is released. 10.1 should get
> long-term security support, which means two years from release.
> http://www.freebsd.org/security/security.html#sup
>
> Within Debian:
>
> * packaging of 10.1 snapshots began some 3 weeks ago, it is in
> experimental and got through the NEW queue already
>
> * Christoph has been running it throughout DebConf
>
> * it's working fine with d-i: I've been using 10.1 kernels exclusively
> while working on the bugs reported in d-i beta 1 (even udebs based on
> 10.0 or older userland)
>
> * the snapshots are based on 10-STABLE, so it is not a development
> trunk; it is viable to use a snapshot of this for Debian even if the
> final 10.1 release comes too late to reach sid/jessie
>
> * we're already using some features that were new/unimplemented in 10.0,
> such as newcons that Robert backported an early version of, and KMS
> which should have matured some more in 10.1
>
> * clang-3.3 is being dropped from jessie/sid in favour of clang-3.4 or
> 3.5: upstream already builds 10.1 with clang-3.4, whereas 10.0 would
> need some bits backported by us (not too difficult though)
>
> The actual 'transition' part will be kfreebsd-kernel-headers from 10.0
> to 10.1 (a snapshot is in experimental; we could update it to a newer
> snapshot in a few days). It already went through a 9.2->10.0 transition
> earlier this year. Reverse-Depends are mostly our own freebsd-libs,
> libc0.1-dev, and from there it could affect many more things.
>
> Still it doesn't seem like a regular transition, I don't know if a Ben
> file could be written to describe it. It should not make anything
> uninstallable by migrating to jessie.
>
> amd64/i386 hardware is easy to get a hold of, so we could do some
> test rebuilds where it seems like a good idea.
This is too vague. Can you give more details? Currently I don't have enough
information to be able to ack or nack it. At least I would like to know: what
packages are involved, what packages need rebuilds, and of those, which ones
currently fail. Any further information is of course welcome.
Emilio
Reply to: