Re: 3.0r3

[Martin Schulze <joey@infodrom.org>]

Bdale Garbee wrote:
> cjwatson@debian.org (Colin Watson) writes:
> 
> > This is not a matter of upgrading the boot disk images used in woody.
> > It's a matter of syncing up the source used to build the already-working
> > images. It would be much better if this could happen without the
> > necessity for 3.0.24 or whatever, since there really should be no need
> > to get all architectures to rebuild boot-floppies just to tweak woody's
> > Packages and Sources files.
> 
> Sounds right to me.
> 
> Separate, but related, question.  Is it ok for us to do a bin-NMU'ish build
> of boot-floppies for ia64 so that we can move to a new kernel image on a woody
> point release?  We would *really* like to get rid of the 2.4.17 bits in woody
> and replace them with a fresher 2.4 version that works on more ia64 systems and
> has been better tested...  When we released woody, precious few ia64 systems
> were "in the wild" and we've learned a lot since then...

Since this requires changes in the source, a binary NMU is not re proper
action.

Regards,

	Joey

-- 
Life is too short to run proprietary software.  -- Bdale Garbee