On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 04:17:41AM -0400, Anthony DeRobertis wrote: > On Tue, May 10, 2005 at 09:32:49AM +0200, Rene Mayrhofer wrote: > > Am Dienstag, 10. Mai 2005 02:40 schrieb Anthony DeRobertis: > > > Seconded! The only RC-bug in openswan is for a newer version of the > > > kernel which will not ship with Sarge. > > Yes, that's true. I have to admit that I messed up in not marking this bug > > sid. My current best solution would be to put 2.2.0-4 back into testing > > (which got removed because of that RC bug that's for 2.3.0). What is the > > general opinion on this? > 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 :-) 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. :/ -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature