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

Re: packages missing from sarge

On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 11:10:10AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote:
> Steve Langasek schrieb:
> >>If that 2.3.x bug really only affects the newer (> 2.6.8) kernel, why
> >>not just get 2.3.x pushed into sarge? Are there any other big issues
> >>with it, that weren't in 2.2.x? Some people might certainly like the
> >>agressive mode support, or 2.3.1's NAT-T fixes. Personally, 2.2.x is
> >>fine for me though --- anything but 2.1.x for me :-)
> Mainly because 2.3.x causes other openswan boxes to crash in some
> (reproducable) cases - that's a pretty bad regression from 2.2.0 and I
> keep bugging upstream with it for at least 3 months. No fix until now,
> so we can't wait until it will be fixed. I would vote for 2.2.0-4. (or
> even 2.2.0-5).

> > Because 2.2.3 is no longer in the archive, and resurrecting new binaries via
> > t-p-u gives us even less than the usual protection against breakage caused
> > by a lack of testing. :/
> Does that mean that the only way to get the known stable 2.2.0-x back
> into testing is an upload to unstable with an epoch? I really wouldn't
> like to go that route if I can avoid it....

Well, AFAIK openswan has never actually been in testing /before/, so it's
not a matter of getting it /back/; but yes, the upshot is that I'm not
comfortable adding packages to testing via t-p-u.

Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: