Control: tags -1 moreinfo On 31/08/14 23:55, Steven Chamberlain wrote: > Package: release.debian.org > User: release.debian....@packages.debian.org > Usertags: transition > > Hi, This is not a mere transition but our ambition to use kFreeBSD 10.1 > as our kernel version for jessie. > > This is primarily driven by the FreeBSD 10.1 release schedule; they > have gone into a 'code slush' which resembles Debian's early freeze, > with a final freeze date of 5th September, then they begin beta > builds. That applies to their entire distribution, not just their > kernel. > http://www.freebsd.org/releases/10.1R/schedule.html > > A major consequence of their release schedule is that 10.0 security > support will have ended by the time Jessie is released. 10.1 should get > long-term security support, which means two years from release. > http://www.freebsd.org/security/security.html#sup > > Within Debian: > > * packaging of 10.1 snapshots began some 3 weeks ago, it is in > experimental and got through the NEW queue already > > * Christoph has been running it throughout DebConf > > * it's working fine with d-i: I've been using 10.1 kernels exclusively > while working on the bugs reported in d-i beta 1 (even udebs based on > 10.0 or older userland) > > * the snapshots are based on 10-STABLE, so it is not a development > trunk; it is viable to use a snapshot of this for Debian even if the > final 10.1 release comes too late to reach sid/jessie > > * we're already using some features that were new/unimplemented in 10.0, > such as newcons that Robert backported an early version of, and KMS > which should have matured some more in 10.1 > > * clang-3.3 is being dropped from jessie/sid in favour of clang-3.4 or > 3.5: upstream already builds 10.1 with clang-3.4, whereas 10.0 would > need some bits backported by us (not too difficult though) > > The actual 'transition' part will be kfreebsd-kernel-headers from 10.0 > to 10.1 (a snapshot is in experimental; we could update it to a newer > snapshot in a few days). It already went through a 9.2->10.0 transition > earlier this year. Reverse-Depends are mostly our own freebsd-libs, > libc0.1-dev, and from there it could affect many more things. > > Still it doesn't seem like a regular transition, I don't know if a Ben > file could be written to describe it. It should not make anything > uninstallable by migrating to jessie. > > amd64/i386 hardware is easy to get a hold of, so we could do some > test rebuilds where it seems like a good idea.
This is too vague. Can you give more details? Currently I don't have enough information to be able to ack or nack it. At least I would like to know: what packages are involved, what packages need rebuilds, and of those, which ones currently fail. Any further information is of course welcome. Emilio -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bsd-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: https://lists.debian.org/5410a3a0.9060...@debian.org