Re: Grace period for kernel-source uploads
On Sat, 09 Apr 2005, Jurij Smakov wrote:
> Don't you think that the way you described (and that's the way it works
> now) is the major reason behind the very long times it takes to push
> through the security updates on all architectures? That way it make take
> people a long time to make k-i even build against 2.6.x-3 due to broken
> arch-specific patches, missing/added kernel options, etc. I would rather
> proactively track the changes in k-s, making sure that new k-i may be
> built against it immediately.
disagreed,
all the archs managed in the d-k svn got their updates steadily.
problems are the trees outside of it as well d-i udebs relying
on a stable abi, which is easily broken on many security fixes.
> I am not saying that it should be a requirement, just something everyone
> can benefit from (especially in the case of ABI-breaking changes in k-s).
don't think so,
agreed with dillinger that current way works.
regads
maks
Reply to: