Re: yet another snag (was Re: Current 2.2r2 status)
On Thu, Nov 23, 2000 at 01:29:46AM -0500, Adam Di Carlo wrote:
> Adam Di Carlo <adam@onshore.com> writes:
>
> > If it is possible for someone to build a new
> > pcmcia-modules-2.2.218pre21 I can possibly build boot-floppies 2.2.19
> > with that tonight. If not, we're going to have broken pcmcia on
> > i386/vanilla kernel, which may or may not be a release blocker in the
> > release manager's eyes.
>
> This hasn't happened, and I gotta go to bed, then catch a flight out
> first thing tomorrow AM.
>
> It's possible that people who are not me will be able to execute this
> and we'll have boot-floppies 2.2.19 with the fixed PCMCIA in the next
> 24 hours. However, that seems doubtful.
>
> If the release does go out for the 24th or before this gets fixed,
> then please use boot-floppies 2.2.17 for 2.2r2 rather than
> boot-floppies 2.2.18. For i386, there were no strictly "release
> critical" changes from 2.2.17 to 2.2.19. But that's just me, because
> I don't consider a new base with security fixes strictly release
> critical, in the sense that those packages will be upgraded so long as
> the new fixed pkgs are in the archive (or CD).
How about just using the new base2_2.tgz with 2.2.17, if it comes down to
that? Nothing in the base tarball should affect how the boot-floppies work
(in fact, I'm pretty sure they can be, and maybe should be, built
independently of each other).
The packages used for the root disk isn't affected by security issues
since it is only used for installs, which are always run as root anyway.
Ben
--
-----------=======-=-======-=========-----------=====------------=-=------
/ Ben Collins -- ...on that fantastic voyage... -- Debian GNU/Linux \
` bcollins@debian.org -- bcollins@openldap.org -- bcollins@linux.com '
`---=========------=======-------------=-=-----=-===-======-------=--=---'
Reply to: