On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 10:49:10PM +0200, Adrian Bunk wrote: > 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. [1]. Ah, ok. I couldn't seem to find any references to that the last time the question came up, and whichever member of the release team did the actual removal apparently didn't leave a trace. Still, the concerns about re-adding this software version (which has been out of testing for months) via t-p-u remain. -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature