Re: Kernel Security Updates for Sarge

[Steve Langasek <vorlon@debian.org>]

On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 11:08:29AM +0900, Horms wrote:
> On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:15:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote:
> > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:38:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote:
> > > On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 11:33 +0900, Horms wrote:
> > > > I am not planing to include the CAN-2005-0449 fix in the security or r1
> > > > update as I undersdand that ABI changes are highly problematic. I am
> > > > willing to be convinced otherwise.
> > 
> > > Oh, do ABI changes in packages on security.debian.org break d-i as well?
> > > I figured it would continue pulling udebs from r0, giving us until r1 to
> > > spin d-i.  Is there a problem I'm not seeing?
> > 
> > I don't know of any reason why they would break d-i; and I also don't think
> > that putting off all ABI-breaking security fixes until etch is a very good
> > answer anyway.

> Joey Hess is the expert here. But I think one problem is that
> many of the d-i kernel packages do not have a kernel-tree-x.y.z-n
> dependancy. And thus updating kernel-source means those d-i
> packages can no longer be reproduced. This could get quite messy
> if their is an ABI change... I think... Joey?

That's why we're talking about updating kernels *on security.debian.org* and
not pushing any of these changes into testing (or into stable until it's
time for a point release and everything is in sync).

-- 
Steve Langasek
postmodern programmer

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature