Hi I would like to upload next version of the 6.12.y stable series to unstable, which is 6.12.33-1.
This was a very small release itself consisting of only of 25 commits, the main reason for this upload is bringing in the packaging changes mentioned last time about moving the package revision and ABI name rules to configuration. Concretely the packagaging changes are: * d/rules: Include target suite as an input to gencontrol.py * Move package revision and ABI name rules to configuration * Include target Debian release number in ABI name * Add suffix to ABI name to distinguish Debian versions with same upstream and additionally some HW support in arm64/armhf land: * [arm64] Enable Marvell OcteonTX2 NIC driver (Closes: #1098437) * [armhf] Enable M_CAN support, used e.g. on stm32mp153 and stm32mp157 * [arm64] usb/typec: Enable TYPEC_RT1711H as module This is all for 6.12.33. Now to a more complex aspect: Along with this mail I would like to discuss one aspect for the next uploads. If we are not yet just around the corner for 1. another d-i release or for the next steps into even more harder freezing trixie, I strongly would prefer if we could keep up still with some stable series as upstream publishes them (and minimize the deltas beween the updates). The reason is, that if we would stop after 6.12.33 we will get a huge pileup for until the first DSA or first trixie point release. Put honestly though, the 6.12.34 at least will be quite substantial, beeing one including batch of fixes from the 6.16-rc1 release. After each merge window closing and the first -rc1 release upstream the amount of changes flowing in stable series releases is huge. I'm glad to take any advice from both you as release team and specifically as well d-i folks on where we should start to draw the line. We had a brief discussion on when to stop doing further 6.12.y uploads and we agreed that if we are not yet right there as mentioned above we would prefer if we could still to the uploads (as we expect them to land in trixie anyway), with the above reasonings. Ben, Uwe and Bastian correct me here publicly if I put the assessment wrongly. Regards, Salvatore
signature.asc
Description: PGP signature