Hi Henrique and others A question about this. Can't we simply do a binary build and upload that to solve the problem?
// Ola On Wed, 15 Sept 2021 at 12:54, Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org> wrote: > Hello, > > The microcode packages have been whitelisted for at least a decade, > however non-free auto-building is spotty. Intel-microcode faces the same > issue. I don't really recall if contrib is any better. > > This has bitten me so many times, I never do uploads of non-free > intel-microcode or amd64-microcode missing binaries to debian-security, or > when racing the deadline for a s-p-u. They're all source+i386+amd64. > > For unstable, source-only works and has worked well for a while. It > likely works for stable as well as it should have inherited that from > unstable... But old(*)stable, security and backports? I would not hold my > breath: I'd have to "test the waters" first to know. > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021, at 16:22, Holger Levsen wrote: > > On Tue, Aug 31, 2021 at 01:13:28PM +0200, Philipp Hahn wrote: > > > What needs to be done to get "amd64-micocode" in version > > > "3.20181128.1~deb9u1" into "stretch-security"? > > > Build it manually and upload it somewhere? > > > > yes. (and utkarsh is on it.) > > > > > Can we so something to prevent this from happening again: > > > > it seems security/non-free is currently not autobuilt at all, so > > I suppose this needs to be addressed and than amd64-microcode needs to > > be whitelisted to be autobuilt there (as any other non-free package). > > -- > Henrique de Moraes Holschuh <h...@debian.org> > > -- --- Inguza Technology AB --- MSc in Information Technology ---- | o...@inguza.com o...@debian.org | | http://inguza.com/ Mobile: +46 (0)70-332 1551 | ---------------------------------------------------------------
