On Sat, Feb 26, 2005 at 09:47:45AM +0100, Sven Luther wrote: > On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 08:41:52AM -0800, Steve Langasek wrote: > > > > 2. kernel-image-2.4.27-arm hasn't quite made it to testing yet either > > > > (should today) > > > > 3. the powerpc 2.4.27 kernel still isn't updated either, and is > > > > close to the point of not having an update included in rc3 at all. > > > These packages do not have such a restrictive dependancy, so they would > > > be fine. Though I think that is a bug in there packaging. > > Well, *that* may actually be a problem in terms of reproducibility of the > > build and GPL source requirements, so maybe someone should verify what arm > > and powerpc do with kernel-source patchlevels prior to release... > Who cares, really, The people who want Debian to be a law-abiding organization that *follows the terms of the licenses on the code we distribute*? > all our packaging material source is held in subversion, and there is > snapshot.debian.net, which should both satisfy to the requirement of the > GPL. It does *not* satisfy the GPL's source requirements. Please re-read GPL section 3. > I will not fix this prior to release, definitively not. But if you > feel like providing patches or fixing that yourself, i would welcome the > changes, altough it would be tested and checked to make sure it doesn't break > more than it should. This just means that we have to assume arm and powerpc kernels must always be updated at the same time as kernel-source packages, even for changes that are not considered important for the powerpc or arm architectures. This may not a big deal -- we're still light-years ahead of woody in terms of handling kernel security support -- but it's still something the security team would need to be aware of. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature