On Mon, Jul 24, 2023 at 10:36:47PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> A policy question is that it might be a good idea to rename the packages
> when publishing a regression update for a DSA, that's the only place I see
> where this problem might otherwise reach production systems.
Adding another modifi
On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> After a lot of thinking, maybe a solution that allows for incompatible
> package updates without renames would be more useful. Something like:
>
> We uncouple the package names and ABI. The ABI will include the
> complete version,
On Sun, Jul 23, 2023 at 09:44:40AM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>...
> We uncouple the package names and ABI. The ABI will include the
> complete version, so every rebuild will change it.
That's also what I meant with "It should only be impossible to make them
co-installable".
> The package name
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:16:15PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> Please share your thoughts or if we have a better solution overall.
After a lot of thinking, maybe a solution that allows for incompatible
package updates without renames would be more useful. Something like:
We uncouple the packag
On Fri, Jul 14, 2023 at 04:17:34PM +0200, Ben Hutchings wrote:
> On Thu, 2023-07-13 at 21:16 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> [...]
> > ## Proposed behaviour
> >
> > This tries to make sure everything apart from experimental gets new
> > names and ABI on every upload.
> >
> > * experimental:
> >
Hi
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 11:28:31PM +0300, Adrian Bunk wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:16:15PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
> > ### NMU
> > Can be easily added back by adding "bX" or so to the ABI.
> That would be confusing, bX is naming convention for binNMUs in Debian
> revisions.
Right.
On Thu, 2023-07-13 at 21:16 +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
[...]
> ## Proposed behaviour
>
> This tries to make sure everything apart from experimental gets new
> names and ABI on every upload.
>
> * experimental:
> Keep version 6.1~rc2-3~exp4, 6.1.2-3~exp4
> Keep ABI 6.1.0-0-arm64
[...]
Wh
On Thu, Jul 13, 2023 at 09:16:15PM +0200, Bastian Blank wrote:
>...
> ### NMU
>
> Can be easily added back by adding "bX" or so to the ABI.
That would be confusing, bX is naming convention for binNMUs in Debian
revisions.
> ### BinNMU
>
> Is impossible to support. The version change requires
Hi folks
You might have heard that the masters of Linux Secure Boot, aka shim
reviewers, have spoken. They have told us that our way of handling
kernel modules is not longer acceptable. For some context see #1040901.
This means for us that we have to make sure that kernel and modules
can't be m
9 matches
Mail list logo
