On Tue, Jun 06, 2006 at 09:15:44PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > I seem to remember though that the security update was planned for the end > of Debconf, so I was a bit surprised when reading my mail backlog this > week that it is not out yet.
That was the optimistic plan (I didn't mean to imply otherwise - at the time I knew this was risky), but working from DebConf turned out to be pretty painful (net-wise) - we only managed to actually *release* the old woody updates. However, we (Troy, Moritz and I) got 2.6.8 source mostly complete there and I babysat builds off & on from a net cafe in Mexico in between trips to the beach[1] :) I finished up 2.4.27 source when I got back from vacation, then went through the build cycle for them over the next few days. There was a lag waiting for porter builds, although I've eliminated my external dependencies on porters for m68k & sparc, so they should be faster next time. ... if only I had a working NIC in my SGI Octane :( > What is the full status of the updates for Sarge for both 2.4 and 2.6? I submitted them last weekend from bazcamp[2], Moritz said in this thread that he plans to release them this weekend. > A release using sarge2 kernels would have been logical if the kernel udebs > would have been available in t-p-u earlier than was the case. With all > the holidays planned after debconf the timing for the remaining work was > rather unfortunate. ATM waiting for sarge3 still seems more logical. > Personally, I can only go full speed on this once I get back home next > week. I hope to have all the bits you need waiting for you by then. > As kernel udebs are built manually it is entirely up to the person doing > the build to make sure that the correct kernel version is installed on > the machine used for the builds. I will plan to build with sarge3 unless someone tells me different in the next couple days. aba/zorbel? > On Tuesday 06 June 2006 18:56, Martin Schulze wrote: > > However, if kernel udebs should be part of the security update, then > > we'll need proper source packages that build these udebs - or, if > > these already exist, a pointer which source package has been forgotton > > in the last kernel update rounds. > > No, I don't think that really makes sense as just building the kernel > udebs would not get them to the users. You need to release the installer > as a whole for that. Agreed. Building them with each security update would have no positive impact that I can see, unless of course the process was completely automated. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zihuatanejo [2] http://bazcamp.org/ I've had a tough few weeks :) -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
