On Sun, Mar 23, 2008 at 07:23:10PM +0000, Florian Weimer wrote:
> * Pierre Habouzit:
>
> >> Isn't it risky for partial upgrades from etch ? Shouldn't we wait for
> >> lenny+1 to revert this ?
> >
> > I second that, please don't revert the patch until lenny+1. FWIW I
> > believe the release team as a whole wanted the patch to be kept as well,
> > but I'll let the other members correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> What about fixing the etch kernel?
Sigh, could we avoid the same discussion over and over, people are not
supposed (we never asked it in the past, and I see no valid reason to do
so) to update to the last stable point release before upgrading to
stable+1. Moreover we support the fact that people use custom kernels,
or even vanilla ones, that don't have the fix.
FWIW both the kernel and gcc need to have the fix:
- the kernel because it's easy to backport (the patch is almost a one
liner IIRC) and that it's an important fix;
- gcc because we don't expect people to have a fixed kernel for their
lennies.
THe _BEST_ example of that are buildd's that for now run etch (even
some sarge not so long time ago) and have a sid chroot to build. Not
keeping the CLD patch means that we break our own buildd infrastructure.
Yay.
--
·O· Pierre Habouzit
··O madcoder@debian.org
OOO http://www.madism.org
Attachment:
pgpPns00yQArR.pgp
Description: PGP signature