[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: rc3 release blockers

On Tue, Mar 01, 2005 at 04:35:23PM -0500, Joey Hess wrote:
> There's also the powerpc 2.4 kernel thing. The new kernel debs are stuck
> in incoming. There is a new base-installer release that is blocked until
> they get out of incoming, and will then need to be autobuilt and will
> probably fall afoul of the mipsel and arm overload problems and take
> time. Then it needs to be tested. The sarge build system also needs to
> be updated for this new kernel. I told Sven when he did this that he was
> looking at a 1 or 2 week delay in rc3, and it's still looking that way.

I reject that claim, and it is full calomny. There was nothing stopping Kamion
to make a base-installer upload on monday, and you can't really blame me for
the delays of the due to the autobuilders.

The kernel-latest-powerpc package 101 has been uploaded in january, and was
held over a month and a half in NEW. I asked Kamion to modify base-installer
to use it in early february or before, but this was ignored because of the NEW
handling, and if it had happened as it should really, then you will not be
having the problems you have about this now. 

So, if you want to blame someone for those delays, blame the ftp-masters for
not doing their job in NEW handling (and seriously one and half month without
notice for a typo in the control file in the 100 upload is way too much), and
plainly ignoring any email sent to them mentioning this issue, and the
potential effect on the d-i rc3 release, and blame Kamion or you for not
having pushed the ftp-masters on this while i asked you a month ago, and
modifying base-installer to depend on this.

You are here blaming me for the delay, and i fully reject this accusation, and
think that you and Kamion both ignored this issue earlier, and can't blame me
on this.

> I have not decided at this point if I'm going to let it force the delay
> or go ahead and release without it, as previously promised. I'm trying
> to keep my extreme unhappiness that the powerpc kernel security
> update was handled this way (and that the counsel of me and vorlon not
> to do it was ignored) from coloring this decision.. :-/

Please, let's just drop 2.4 kernels for powerpc and be gone with it, i told
you this was an option, as nobody in his right mind should use 2.4 on any of
the supported install path today. And you don't even realize the work i did
last week to make this happen, and just discard it without even looking at the
changes it brings, when those changes are really minimal or even non-existent.
In fact i believe that the resulting kernel.udebs are even identic to the bit,
as a run of md5sum on them should prove (well, unless there is a timestamp
included in the binaries somehow, but i don't think so).

In any case, you are all making a bigger issue about this than it really is,
and are trying to blame me for all the problems, and making absurd claims of
GPL violation.

If you don't want me to participate in the d-i effort anymore, then please
tell so, and if you have accusations, please provide fact and not pure
caloumny when airing them like that.

Sven Luther

Reply to: