On Mon, 2013-02-11 at 08:36 -0800, dann frazier wrote:
> On Mon, Feb 11, 2013 at 03:41:03AM +0000, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> > On Sun, 2013-02-10 at 16:25 +0000, Adam D. Barratt wrote:
> > > Hi,
> > >
> > > We're somewhat overdue with the next Squeeze point release (6.0.7) and
> > > it'd be good to get it done before the wheezy release, so that we can
> > > pull in some upgrade fixes. As an opening gambit, some proposed dates,
> > > all of which appear to currently work for me:
> > >
> > > February 23rd
> > >
> > > March 2nd
> > >
> > > March 9th
> >
> > No opinion on dates, but here's the state of the Linux kernel:
> >
> > The current version in s-p-u (2.6.32-47) adds support for new SCSI
> > controllers, which should be included in the installer. However there
> > has been disappointingly little testing feedback about this.
>
> fyi, I did hear from an HP contact that the hpsa update was working
> for him on new servers.
OK, we've had a few positive reports on hpsa, one on megaraid_sas but
nothing about isci so far.
> > There are a couple of pending non-security fixes:
> > * [s390] s390/time: fix sched_clock() overflow (Closes: #698382)
> > * Revert "time: Avoid making adjustments if we haven't accumulated
> > anything" (Closes: #699112, regression in 2.6.32.60)
> > These ought to be included in the point release but should not be need
> > in the installer.
> >
> > Dann/Moritz, do you have any plans for a security or other stable
> > update? Should I upload to stable with just these two fixes?
>
> I've been planning a security update, but work travel has been
> intervening. An upload in the next couple days should be doable
> though. Given your statement above, do you think this should be based
> on -47 or -46?
I suppose it should be -46, since we can expect users to spend less time
on local testing before upgrading production systems for a security
update.
One or other of us will then need to merge the squeeze-security branch
into squeeze and upload -48 in time for the point release.
> I'll probably drop the fix for CVE-2012-3552, at least for this
> upload. Your suggestion for avoiding the ABI change is good, but I'm
> not yet confident enough w/ the backport.
Makes sense. I might have a look at it later.
Ben.
--
Ben Hutchings
We get into the habit of living before acquiring the habit of thinking.
- Albert Camus
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part