Re: packages missing from sarge

[Rene Mayrhofer <rene.mayrhofer@gibraltar.at>]

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....

with best regards,
Rene