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

Re: Future of the linux udebs

On Fri, Feb 15, 2008 at 12:31:05PM -0200, Otavio Salvador wrote:
> While I'm not nacking it right now, I nack it to happen before Beta2
> with 2.6.24 gets out.

I did not setup a timeline yet. Because of the status of .24, it won't
get the support anyway. So .25 is the minimum.

>   - Is impossible to release d-i with a different kernel from sid
>     without a lot of hassle

d-i releases are built with testing udebs. Or do you mean something

| USE_UDEBS_FROM=unstable
| else
| endif

>   - If a bad kernel, with a bunch of ugly bugs, gets uploaded, all d-i
>     development is affected

If a bad glibc is uploaded, anything is affected. With such sort of
arguments you can kill anything because the propability that something
will get wrong is always larger than zero. We do a lot to not let really
broken things through and I don't think you will be able to catch more

>                   For it to work testing images, _before_ the kernel
> upload to happen, would be required to at least reduce the risk of a
> kernel upload to stop all d-i development until it gets fixed.

We provide a snapshots archive which can be used through the whole
development cycle.

> Another thihk that I see as a _must_ is that d-i team could nack a
> kernel upload. This is requred since d-i won't be allowed to diverge
> from sid kernels anymore (I mean during development) and those
> migrations would need to be much more coordinated with d-i RM and d-i
> porters.

We coordinate the uploads on d-kernel@, for security uploads the waiting
period is usualy a lot shorter. If someone have a problem, he can speak
up and his concerns will get heard.

> linux-2.6/linux-modules-extra-2.6 would build the udebs using what
> list? Still using kernel-wedge?

They need to include the list themself, it will get version dependant.

> How the uploads of kernel would be coordinated? Will kernel team allow
> d-i to _nack_ a kernel upload?

Not for uploads which fixes bugs like CVE-2008-0600. A "nack" without
anything may also not have any effect. But if there are concerns we
should be able to find a solution which both sides can live with.


There are some things worth dying for.
		-- Kirk, "Errand of Mercy", stardate 3201.7

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: