On Fri, Feb 25, 2005 at 05:45:45PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > Holes that do not effect the installer enough to require an immediate > > update can be dealt with more slowly, we can let the fixed kernel debs > > get enough testing so we know they're solid before updating the > > installer, and we can even wait until the next major release of the > > installer to update it. The only additional concern might be GPL issues > > with the module binaries being out of sync. > Ok, that sounds sensible. Could you elaborate on what you mean by GPL > issues. Are you talking about exported symbols and their GPL status? This is in reference to the GPL requirements for distributing full source alongside any binaries, which is a bit tricky when we're building kernel udebs separately from the kernel debs and there's a possibility for them to get out-of-sync. AIUI, the kernel-source and per-arch kernel source packages are carefully crafted such that a new revision of the kernel-source package doesn't prevent one from continuing using it to produce idempotent kernel-image packages based on the previous Debian revision. There's no such safeguard preventing skew between kernel-image-$version-$arch and linux-kernel-di-$arch. > > 1. kernel-image-2.4.27-sparc has not made it to testing yet. I think > > kernel-latest-2.4-sparc is preventing it, since that package depends > > on things like kernel-headers-2.4.27-1-sparc64 > This has an explicit dependancy on kernel-tree-2.4.27-8 (as it should), > so I guess uploading kernel-tree-2.4.27-9 would block it. Not at all: Package: kernel-tree-2.4.27 Version: 2.4.27-8 Provides: kernel-tree-2.4.27-1, kernel-tree-2.4.27-2, kernel-tree-2.4.27-3, kernel-tree-2.4.27-4, kernel-tree-2.4.27-5, kernel-tree-2.4.27-6, kernel-tree-2.4.27-7, kernel-tree-2.4.27-8, kernel-tree-2.4.27-8.mine, kernel-tree-2.4.27-8.r2289, kernel-tree-2.4.27-8.r2298 Perfectly by design... > > 2. kernel-image-2.4.27-arm hasn't quite made it to testing yet either > > (should today) > > 3. the powerpc 2.4.27 kernel still isn't updated either, and is > > close to the point of not having an update included in rc3 at all. > These packages do not have such a restrictive dependancy, so they would > be fine. Though I think that is a bug in there packaging. Well, *that* may actually be a problem in terms of reproducibility of the build and GPL source requirements, so maybe someone should verify what arm and powerpc do with kernel-source patchlevels prior to release... Cheers, -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature