On Sat, 2011-04-30 at 21:41 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 17:37 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Mon, 2011-04-25 at 17:35 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > > > On Wed, 2011-04-13 at 12:57 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > > I think there's still a Xen regression (since 2.6.32-31) to be fixed. > > > > > > I'm assuming that's #621072, which it looks like a resolution has been > > > found for? > > > > Right. > > Are there any other outstanding fixes or other blockers for a 2.6.32-34 > upload? The approximate two-monthly schedule for stable point releases > means that we should be aiming for 6.0.2 to be around the end of May, so > it would be good to try and get a finalised kernel for that in the > not-too-distant future. Let's upload what we have now for 2.6.32-34. I intend to backport some new hardware support but we can put that in 2.6.32-35. > (fwiw, the next lenny point release - 5.0.9 - shouldn't be too far > behind; we need to poke relevant people but I'm working on an estimated > schedule of around mid-June). There are some (minor, AFAIK) security fixes pending. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Once a job is fouled up, anything done to improve it makes it worse.
Description: This is a digitally signed message part