On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 09:03:01AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > On Tue, Apr 05, 2005 at 03:15:00PM +0900, Horms wrote: > > On Mon, Apr 04, 2005 at 08:41:58AM +0200, Sven Luther wrote: > > > Hello, > > > > > > It seems as the 2.4.27 and 2.6.8 kernels which are sarge release > > > candidates > > > are now frozen, and will be part of sarge as is, complete with all the > > > bugs > > > and problems present in them, and maybe even some security issues which > > > will > > > not be fixed in d-i, but only in testing/stable-security-updates, due to > > > the > > > longish time needed for d-i to regenerate their kernel. > > > > > > I thus announce my intentions to stop any work on those kernels, and give > > > them > > > over to the sarge security team and/or any other group of people who will > > > be > > > handling stable kernels, and focus my attention on the 2.6.11 and beyond > > > kernels. > > > > > > I will shortly orphan those packages, but will not do an upload setting > > > their > > > maintainers to q-a, as they should be maintained by the kernel-team > > > anyway, > > > and i will not waste 24+ hours of build and bandwidth for such a small > > > change. > > > > Is there any need to oprphan them, aren't they maintained by the kernel > > team? > > Though you are the only person on the team who does ppc stuff IIRC, so > > maybey it does make sense. > > Yep, it is more a flag to invite someone to take over. I believe that there is > not really much need to do any special work, the most difficult thing would be > : > > 1) monitor the kernel-source uploads so that you know when to build. > => this is a generic problem, and we should maybe have some process in place > to streamline this, and some framework to follow this. I believe that > failure to handle this correctly is the number one reason for the huge d-i > delays joeyh complained about, but as there doesn't seem to be any will to > fix the technical problem, i don't want to get involved in this anymore. > > 2) notice that a kernel-source upgrade broke a particular arch and provide > feedback. This is of two kinds, either added config options, and here again > we need a process, or a kernel-source patch which breaks an existing arch > patch. > > The rest is just bumping the changelog entry and doing the build. The only > part which can't really be automated is the signing of the packages, altough > ideally the packages should be feed to the autobuilders. The sarge team didn't > want to take the time to streamline this process and make it all easier in the > future, so afeared where they of the delay this will cause, so i wash my hands > of this and let them enjoy the mess they will get, and deservedly.
Are there debian machines that are suitable for doing such a build should the need arise? It seems that if it is just a matter of running a build and watching bugs, then whoever updates kernel-source could do the ppc build. That is assuming someone like yourself who knows a bit more about ppc is available for consultation of problems arise. -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
