Re: sarge3 kernel build & r3
On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:15:44PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote:
> I seem to remember though that the security update was planned for the end
> of Debconf, so I was a bit surprised when reading my mail backlog this
> week that it is not out yet.
That was the optimistic plan (I didn't mean to imply otherwise - at
the time I knew this was risky), but working from DebConf turned out
to be pretty painful (net-wise) - we only managed to actually
*release* the old woody updates.
However, we (Troy, Moritz and I) got 2.6.8 source mostly complete
there and I babysat builds off & on from a net cafe in Mexico in
between trips to the beach[1] :) I finished up 2.4.27 source when I got
back from vacation, then went through the build cycle for them over
the next few days. There was a lag waiting for porter builds,
although I've eliminated my external dependencies on porters for m68k
& sparc, so they should be faster next time.
... if only I had a working NIC in my SGI Octane :(
> What is the full status of the updates for Sarge for both 2.4 and 2.6?
I submitted them last weekend from bazcamp[2], Moritz said in this
thread that he plans to release them this weekend.
> A release using sarge2 kernels would have been logical if the kernel udebs
> would have been available in t-p-u earlier than was the case. With all
> the holidays planned after debconf the timing for the remaining work was
> rather unfortunate. ATM waiting for sarge3 still seems more logical.
> Personally, I can only go full speed on this once I get back home next
> week.
I hope to have all the bits you need waiting for you by then.
> As kernel udebs are built manually it is entirely up to the person doing
> the build to make sure that the correct kernel version is installed on
> the machine used for the builds.
I will plan to build with sarge3 unless someone tells me different in
the next couple days. aba/zorbel?
> On Tuesday 06 June 2006 18:56, Martin Schulze wrote:
> > However, if kernel udebs should be part of the security update, then
> > we'll need proper source packages that build these udebs - or, if
> > these already exist, a pointer which source package has been forgotton
> > in the last kernel update rounds.
>
> No, I don't think that really makes sense as just building the kernel
> udebs would not get them to the users. You need to release the installer
> as a whole for that.
Agreed. Building them with each security update would have no
positive impact that I can see, unless of course the process was
completely automated.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zihuatanejo
[2] http://bazcamp.org/
I've had a tough few weeks :)
--
dann frazier
Reply to: