On Fri, May 13, 2005 at 10:14:55AM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > On Fri, 2005-05-13 at 11:53 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > dann frazier wrote: > > > On Thu, 2005-05-12 at 10:50 -0400, Joey Hess wrote: > > > > Horms wrote: > > > > > ia64: version in Sarge: 2.6.8-12 > > > > > > > > > > http://svn.debian.org/wsvn/kernel/trunk/kernel/ia64/kernel-image-2.6.8-ia64-2.6.8/debian/changelog?op=file&rev=0&sc=0 > > > > > > > > Will -14 will be an ABI change from -12 or not? > > > > > > Yes, it should. > > > > > > Current status > > > -------------- > > > * Sarge has a -2 ABI for ia64. > > > * Sid has the -3 ABI for ia64. The ABI changed due to both the > > > disabling of PREEMPT (for a security reason) and a security abi > > > change that occured in kernel-tree-2.6.8-14 that was reverted in -15. > > > > > > So, -14 should either have the -3 ABI or a -4 ABI. > > > > It's only the preempt change that actually changes the ABI then isn't > > it? > > If we re-add CAN-2005-0449 patches that changed the ABI, then that will > cause an ABI change as well. These patches were dropped to avoid > changing the ABI prior to sarge, but I imagine we'll want to re-add them > in a security update. I don't know if there are other pending > security/ABI changes.
I am not planing to include the CAN-2005-0449 fix in the security or r1 update as I undersdand that ABI changes are highly problematic. I am willing to be convinced otherwise. > For ia64, two changes caused the ABI difference between sarge and sid: > > -2 ABI (sarge) -3 ABI (sid) > --------------------------------------------- > PREEMPT | on | off > CAN-2005-0449 | no | yes > > -- > dann frazier <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > > -- > To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- Horms -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
