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

Re: Bug reports of DFSG violations are tagged 'lenny-ignore'?

On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:

> We didn't decide to release yet...

        Fair enough.

>>         Now, if we are all so very eager to have these bugs go away, we
>>  have no objections to an NMU with the patches that have been posted on
>>  -kernel mailing list, right? (Note: some of these patches have only
>>  recently been posted, so NMU's based on these patches have only just
>>  becme possible).
> Not in principle, though I would object an NMU that is not tested
> properly. 

        What would you call proper testing? I promise to build the kernel
 images on two architectures I have access to (i386 and amd64), and test
 the images on the limited set of machines I have (3). If the NMU is
 uploaded to people.d.o, perhaps people with access to other hardware
 can test it (though I am no, perhaps, the best candidate to create the
 NMU, since Ben Hutchings has really been doing some heavy lifting with
 the patches).

        If an NMU of the kernel package is acceptable, in absence of the
 kernel-team themselves accepting the patches and doing an MU, then
 perhaps the issue has been overblown.

        My impression had been that the kernel image packages were
 deemed too important to NMU, especially given their impact on the
 installer.  I'd be happy to be proved wrong.

What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.
Manoj Srivastava <srivasta@debian.org> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>  
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B  924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C

Reply to: