On Tue, Oct 21 2008, Luk Claes wrote:
> We didn't decide to release yet...
Fair enough.
>> Now, if we are all so very eager to have these bugs go away, we
>> have no objections to an NMU with the patches that have been posted on
>> -kernel mailing list, right? (Note: some of these patches have only
>> recently been posted, so NMU's based on these patches have only just
>> becme possible).
>
> Not in principle, though I would object an NMU that is not tested
> properly.
What would you call proper testing? I promise to build the kernel
images on two architectures I have access to (i386 and amd64), and test
the images on the limited set of machines I have (3). If the NMU is
uploaded to people.d.o, perhaps people with access to other hardware
can test it (though I am no, perhaps, the best candidate to create the
NMU, since Ben Hutchings has really been doing some heavy lifting with
the patches).
If an NMU of the kernel package is acceptable, in absence of the
kernel-team themselves accepting the patches and doing an MU, then
perhaps the issue has been overblown.
My impression had been that the kernel image packages were
deemed too important to NMU, especially given their impact on the
installer. I'd be happy to be proved wrong.
manoj
--
What the large print giveth, the small print taketh away.
Manoj Srivastava <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> <http://www.debian.org/~srivasta/>
1024D/BF24424C print 4966 F272 D093 B493 410B 924B 21BA DABB BF24 424C
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
