On Sat, 09 Apr 2005, Jurij Smakov wrote: > Don't you think that the way you described (and that's the way it works > now) is the major reason behind the very long times it takes to push > through the security updates on all architectures? That way it make take > people a long time to make k-i even build against 2.6.x-3 due to broken > arch-specific patches, missing/added kernel options, etc. I would rather > proactively track the changes in k-s, making sure that new k-i may be > built against it immediately.
disagreed, all the archs managed in the d-k svn got their updates steadily. problems are the trees outside of it as well d-i udebs relying on a stable abi, which is easily broken on many security fixes. > I am not saying that it should be a requirement, just something everyone > can benefit from (especially in the case of ABI-breaking changes in k-s). don't think so, agreed with dillinger that current way works. regads maks -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
