On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 18:59 +0100, Adam D. Barratt wrote: > On Sun, 2014-06-29 at 04:14 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > On Wed, 2014-06-11 at 16:39 +0100, Ben Hutchings wrote: > > > I intend to upload linux version 3.2.60-1 to stable-proposed-updates at > > > the weekend. Let me know if there's a reason not to do this. > > > > I've just uploaded now. > > The upload has since had some wider exposure as a result of being used > as the basis for a security release. In the process, a few bugs have > been reported regarding regressions in networking - for instance, > #754173, #754197 and #754294. I think those are all the same bug. For what it's worth, my home router is running the new version without any such problem. > If it weren't for the security fix, I'd be inclined to suggest that we > skip 3.2.60 at this point, to give us more time to address the > regressions; that may still not be the worst idea, as it at least allows > people to easily downgrade to the current stable kernel. > > Thoughts welcome. As there aren't any major changes to hardware support in this version, there will be little benefit from rebuilding the installer using 3.2.60-1. So I'm OK with leaving wheezy as it is. I'm hoping to be able to fix the regressions (probably with a revert) in another security update by the time of the point release. Ben. -- Ben Hutchings All the simple programs have been written, and all the good names taken.
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part