[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: sarge kernel frozen (2.4.27 and 2.6.8), and plans for post-sarge powerpc kernels.

On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:15:00PM +0900, Horms wrote:
> > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:41:58AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > > 
> > > It seems as the 2.4.27 and 2.6.8 kernels which are sarge release candidates
> > > are now frozen, and will be part of sarge as is, complete with all the bugs
> > > and problems present in them, and maybe even some security issues which will
> > > not be fixed in d-i, but only in testing/stable-security-updates, due to the
> > > longish time needed for d-i to regenerate their kernel.
> > > 
> > > I thus announce my intentions to stop any work on those kernels, and give them
> > > over to the sarge security team and/or any other group of people who will be
> > > handling stable kernels, and focus my attention on the 2.6.11 and beyond
> > > kernels.
> > > 
> > > I will shortly orphan those packages, but will not do an upload setting their
> > > maintainers to q-a, as they should be maintained by the kernel-team anyway,
> > > and i will not waste 24+ hours of build and bandwidth for such a small change.
> > 
> > Is there any need to oprphan them, aren't they maintained by the kernel team?
> > Though you are the only person on the team who does ppc stuff IIRC, so 
> > maybey it does make sense.
> Yep, it is more a flag to invite someone to take over. I believe that there is
> not really much need to do any special work, the most difficult thing would be
> :
>   1) monitor the kernel-source uploads so that you know when to build.
>   => this is a generic problem, and we should maybe have some process in place
>   to streamline this, and some framework to follow this. I believe that
>   failure to handle this correctly is the number one reason for the huge d-i
>   delays joeyh complained about, but as there doesn't seem to be any will to
>   fix the technical problem, i don't want to get involved in this anymore.
>   2) notice that a kernel-source upgrade broke a particular arch and provide
>   feedback. This is of two kinds, either added config options, and here again
>   we need a process, or a kernel-source patch which breaks an existing arch
>   patch.
> The rest is just bumping the changelog entry and doing the build. The only
> part which can't really be automated is the signing of the packages, altough
> ideally the packages should be feed to the autobuilders. The sarge team didn't
> want to take the time to streamline this process and make it all easier in the
> future, so afeared where they of the delay this will cause, so i wash my hands
> of this and let them enjoy the mess they will get, and deservedly.

Are there debian machines that are suitable for doing such a build
should the need arise?  It seems that if it is just a matter of running
a build and watching bugs, then whoever updates kernel-source could do
the ppc build.  That is assuming someone like yourself who knows a bit
more about ppc is available for consultation of problems arise.


Reply to: