Re: Bug#1106070: Raising the severity?

[Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org>]

Control: severity -1 serious

Hi Roland, hi Cyril,

On Sun, May 25, 2025 at 05:44:42PM +0200, Roland Clobus wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> On 25/05/2025 17:00, Cyril Brulebois wrote:
> > Hi,
> > 
> > To be honest, I almost asked what the plans were for 6.12.29-1 regarding
> > this issue, and whether Severity: important was appropriate. But I got
> > busy with other things and let this fly…
> > 
> > Salvatore Bonaccorso <carnil@debian.org> (2025-05-25):
> > > I see your point and having though the ITS mitigations in my opinion
> > > is more important. But stepping a bit back I fully understand as well
> > > your point of view.
> > > 
> > > Cyril and Debian boot people, would you actually want to not get
> > > 6.12.29-1 into trixie?
> > 
> > Regarding the installer itself, I'm fine with either having .29 then .30
> > or just waiting for .30. I definitely can see how live people might want
> > to avoid a known broken kernel's reaching testing though.
> > 
> > > FWIW, the next upload *will* include a fix for the loop issue. I have
> > > already imported 6.12.30 for the packaging and marked the loop fix as
> > > to be backported to 6.12.
> 
> If 6.12.30 is nearly ready to be uploaded, I would propose to skip 6.12.29
> and have 6.12.30 in (perhaps even faster than with a 10 day delay)
> 
> If we were to have 6.12.29, the live images based on trixie will be
> untestable and we would fly blind regarding trixie until 6.12.30 lands
> there. We are currently unable to test the live images based on sid, which
> is already a bit uncomfortable to me, I have even considered writing a hack
> to use the trixie kernel instead.
> 
> So 6.12.27 in trixie and 6.12.30 in sid seems the better option to me.

While I think the ITS mitigations would be important, I do not want to
have your life harder working on the life images. Let's raise the
severity of this bug to RC and it will be fixed with the next upload
to unstable.

Regards,
Salvatore