Re: Bits (Nybbles?) from the Vancouver release team meeting
David Nusinow wrote:
[snip]
> > This is a non-issue. The main problem was the kernel situation, which will be
> > streamlined for etch into a single package, and maybe build issues, which
> > could be solved by a separate build queue or priority for d-i issues.
>
> You know, you keep saying this and I have a really hard time
> believing it, although I don't follow the kernel list so please
> enlighten me if I'm wrong.
The plan is to profit from better upstream architecture integration
since 2.6 and build all kernel images from a single package. Sven, btw,
is a member of the kernel team.
> If you have a single source package for 12 different architectures
> that's great, because when you have a security fix you can take
> care of that more easily. That's awesome.
We have that already.
> But then you'll be trading off for the same problems that every
> single other packge faces: namely that if a kernel on a single arch
> has an RC bug then it affects the kernels on every arch. This strikes
> me as being very problematic, and the only way I see around it is
> to downgrade actual RC bugs, which isn't really a solution at all.
Most kernel security bugs hit either generic code, or all architectures
equally.
Thiemo
Reply to: