Hi! Steven Chamberlain <steven@pyro.eu.org> writes: > Christoph Egger wrote: >> Uploading kfreebsd-10 10.1-RC4 in a minute and I guess see for -final > > Final release has been tagged. After the setlogin security fix, there > was only one more change - but it's kind of odd: > > http://freshbsd.org/commit/freebsd/r274367 > To fix a crash bug in a driver module, they've backported a whole > new version from 10-STABLE branch. That's really unusual. > > Since technically, kfreebsd-10 is still part of the official release (it > builds also on linux), we should fix the security bug anyway, and still > ask for an unblock due to that. Speaking of which -- people from -release@ already wondered (and I agree there) why we would want to keep building the kfreebsd kernel on linux. We may want to get it removed on linux so we don't have to handle it at two different places for little gain. What do you think? > This ixl/ixvl driver update seems a bit big to include in such an > unblock request. (Although, for our unofficial release, we'd more > likely want to include that bugfix). What to do? It is *huge*. Guess if we were still considered for normal stable I would ask for pre-approval based on faith in freebsd release process somehow. As it stands I think -release@ would rightfully reject it. I also think we want to use our freedom here to include the real 10.1 release with all its glory .. however another argument to drop the kfreebsd-images from linux -- so we don't have to look at two different jessie branches for kfreebsd-10 where the linux one is essentially untested. Christoph -- 9FED 5C6C E206 B70A 5857 70CA 9655 22B9 D49A E731 Debian Developer | Lisp Hacker | CaCert Assurer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature