On Mon, May 16, 2005 at 11:08:29AM +0900, Horms wrote: > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:15:20PM -0700, Steve Langasek wrote: > > On Sun, May 15, 2005 at 12:38:20PM -0600, dann frazier wrote: > > > On Sat, 2005-05-14 at 11:33 +0900, Horms wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > > Oh, do ABI changes in packages on security.debian.org break d-i as well? > > > I figured it would continue pulling udebs from r0, giving us until r1 to > > > spin d-i. Is there a problem I'm not seeing? > > > > I don't know of any reason why they would break d-i; and I also don't think > > that putting off all ABI-breaking security fixes until etch is a very good > > answer anyway.
> Joey Hess is the expert here. But I think one problem is that > many of the d-i kernel packages do not have a kernel-tree-x.y.z-n > dependancy. And thus updating kernel-source means those d-i > packages can no longer be reproduced. This could get quite messy > if their is an ABI change... I think... Joey? That's why we're talking about updating kernels *on security.debian.org* and not pushing any of these changes into testing (or into stable until it's time for a point release and everything is in sync). -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
