the -12 question
Steve asked on IRC about doing a -12 for 4.0r0. There are a few RC
bugs and a few security bugs that we could fix before then.
Of those present on IRC (vorlon, fjp, fs and myself), there was a
consensus to proceed. Does anyone on the kernel team object to this?
The details...
* This would not involve a spin of d-i[1]
* No ABI changes would be permitted (obviously)
* We would upload to unstable
* I've already merged my changes from the etch-security branches onto
the etch branch. There are other pending CVEs, but nothing I think
is a must before etch (but I might add others while -12 is open)
* vorlon would like to see this uploaded over the weekend, I propose
an upload before Monday's dinstall. waldi: is it possible to get
snapshot builds of the etch branch going for this?
* I also propose we use the requirements in my etch-updates proposal
for fixes (must have bug filed, must be important or greater)
Here's the current list of stuff I'd been tracking for an etch update
- this doesn't mean they were approved by the SRM team, just that they
are on my list of things to review:
http://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/pkgreport.cgi?users=debian-kernel@lists.debian.org;which=tag&data=dkt-etch-update
[1]
<dannf> does it mean a spin of d-i?
<vorlon> no
<dannf> (no ABI change would be allowed of course)
<vorlon> it's likely that fjp won't approve, but I've done the due
diligence for the GPL source issues, and I see no reason to re-spin
d-i over a simple kernel upgrade
<fjp> Unless there are functional fixes in there too that would
improve d-i, I guess I can live with it.
--
dann frazier | HP Open Source and Linux Organization
Reply to: