Cc += debian-boot@, quoting in full accordingly. Hi Salvatore,
Salvatore Bonaccorso <car...@debian.org> (2024-09-13): > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 08:27:44AM +0200, Salvatore Bonaccorso wrote: > > Hi Cyril, Steve, > > > > On Wed, Sep 04, 2024 at 07:51:40AM +0200, Cyril Brulebois wrote: > > > Salvatore Bonaccorso <car...@debian.org> (2024-09-03): > > > > Right, this is sensible. We have currently the FTBFS for 6.10.7-1 for > > > > riscv64 and arm64 which needs to be sorted. We either can have this > > > > fixed isolated or do a 6.10.8-1 with the build failure fixes? Is this > > > > near enough timewise? > > > > > > I don't have any preferences regarding a future wholesale 6.10.y or just > > > a new revision of the current upstream release. It'd probably just make > > > sense to avoid upgrading to 6.11.y since I'd guess we would get more > > > things to look at. > > > > Yes, 6.11.y won't go to unstable anyway before 6.11 is released. So > > that will take still some weeks. That means for unstable we will > > continue following the 6.10.y series for now. > > > > In any case Aurelien worked on the FTBFS issue: > > https://salsa.debian.org/kernel-team/linux/-/merge_requests/1185 > > > > So we would be able to have either 6.10.7-2 or 6.10.8-1 at your > > preference. > > > > Aiming though to make 6.11.y and once ready 6.12.y go timely to > > unstable as the later one is expected/likely the expected LTS version. > > > > > I'll let Steve comment on the preferred timings. > > > > Ack! > > So we are now there. linux/6.10.9-1 should now be able to migrate to > testing, no major issues were reported so far, and I think you can let > it go either with a hint or automatically to testing. Indeed, linux{,-signed-{amd64,arm64}} migrated. > In parallel I'm still working on importing other versions, 6.10.10 was > released and is ready packaging wise. But now I would like to further > coordinate with you. > > Would it be now a good time for planned d-i changes, sho should I hold > back the 6.10.10-1 and later uploads? If so, could you give me (please > CC me so i do not miss it) a ping when it is again fine to do an > upload? I'm trying to see if I can get everything lined up for an upload that would have a chance to migrate, which I think would be enough to unblock Steve on the shim* front. We'll need at least #1081698 addressed (or someone from the release team happy to force debian-installer into testing despite the missing build). I don't want to disrupt anything else going on, and I don't plan on getting a d-i release out alongside that upload, so I'm not freezing udeb-producing packages; hopefully, if the build situation is under control, an `urgent` hint on my side should give debian-installer a decent chance to migrate. If Steve confirms having src:debian-installer into testing is sufficient for the shim* fun, feel free to upload src:linux as soon as you spot the migration. I'll try and keep an eye out and ping you once that happens, though. > Please let me know, and if there is something else I blocking you from > my side. At this point, I don't think so. Once we know whether the proposed approach works for armel, we should be ready for i386 (see other thread). > Once 6.11 would be released and we know it's stabilised in > experimental we would like to move it to unstable and make the way > free in experimental for 6.12-rcX, as the later is in particular > important to make 6.12.y ready as this is expected to be the next LTS > upstream stable version and so the one aimed for trixie. Alright, thanks for the information. Cheers, -- Cyril Brulebois (k...@debian.org) <https://debamax.com/> D-I release manager -- Release team member -- Freelance Consultant
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature
