On Sat, 2013-08-17 at 10:41 -0300, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh wrote: > On Sat, 17 Aug 2013, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > I can do it, it will be somewhat annoying due to version numbering dances, > > > but it is not difficult at all. However, we could really enhance the > > > support of out-of-the-box wheezy for newer kernels with a no-risk stable > > > update of initramfs-tools v0.113... > > > > This is not 'out-of-the-box wheezy' any more then... whichever > > administrator is customising with a new kernel package can also add the > > new initramfs-tools package. There is no point in adding just one of > > them to wheezy. > > Ok. Could you please backport v0.113 to wheezy-backports, then? I will > have to prepare both a stable update (without early fw support) and a wheezy > backport (with early fw support) of intel-microcode. > > I could also upload an initramfs-tools v0.113 backport to wheezy-backports > if you're too busy right now, but it is always best when the maintainer does > a backport, instead of some other DD... You'll need to fix the initramfs-tools version dependency on the microcode patches (i.e. append a ~ to the minimum version). Please do that in unstable as well as wheezy-backports. There should be no changes to make in initramfs-tools, other than adding a changelog entry. Please test git://git.debian.org/git/kernel/initramfs-tools.git#wheezy-backports with the backported microcode patches, then I can upload if you confirm that the combination works. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings Teamwork is essential - it allows you to blame someone else.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part