Re: packages missing from sarge
On Wed, May 11, 2005 at 09:33:36PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> 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.
That's wrong, openswan was in testing earlier this year. Read e.g. .
> Steve Langasek
"Is there not promise of rain?" Ling Tan asked suddenly out
of the darkness. There had been need of rain for many days.
"Only a promise," Lao Er said.
Pearl S. Buck - Dragon Seed