Steve Langasek schrieb: >>If that 2.3.x bug really only affects the newer (> 2.6.8) kernel, why >>not just get 2.3.x pushed into sarge? Are there any other big issues >>with it, that weren't in 2.2.x? Some people might certainly like the >>agressive mode support, or 2.3.1's NAT-T fixes. Personally, 2.2.x is >>fine for me though --- anything but 2.1.x for me :-) Mainly because 2.3.x causes other openswan boxes to crash in some (reproducable) cases - that's a pretty bad regression from 2.2.0 and I keep bugging upstream with it for at least 3 months. No fix until now, so we can't wait until it will be fixed. I would vote for 2.2.0-4. (or even 2.2.0-5).
> Because 2.2.3 is no longer in the archive, and resurrecting new binaries via > t-p-u gives us even less than the usual protection against breakage caused > by a lack of testing. :/ Does that mean that the only way to get the known stable 2.2.0-x back into testing is an upload to unstable with an epoch? I really wouldn't like to go that route if I can avoid it.... with best regards, Rene -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]