dann frazier wrote:
> It seems to me that the best use of everyone's time would be for the
> kernel team to have an agreement with the security team that we will
> restrict changes to our 2.4.27/2.6.8 kernels in such a way that they can
> start with our unstable packages for sarge updates (with maybe a sarge
> toolchain rebuild). This way we can keep doing security updates and
> uploading kernels to sid to get some testing, and if $deity forbid we
> need to do an rc4, we've got new bits prepared for that as well.
> There's no reason for us to be working w/ these kernel revs if our
> changes aren't going to make it into sarge.
>
> Security Team: is there a set of rules for our changes that would make a
> transition like this work?
No set of rules exist.
Security updates should be least intrusive. However, some security updates
imply ABI changes which opens a can of worms (rebuilt modules needed, maybe
rebuilt d-i, rebuild udebs and the like).
I've also been told that many module packages aren't built the Debian
way with a .dsc file that can be used as basis for dpkg-buildpackage
or similar. This makes the problem more difficult.
Regards,
Joey
--
The only stupid question is the unasked one.
Please always Cc to me when replying to me on the lists.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
