This is from #debian-boot, regarding bumping the SONAME and reverting the CAN-2004-081 patch (see #284356 for details):
<dilinger> joeyh: have you talked to horms about his incrementing of the 2.4.27 SONAME stuff yet? <joeyh> I haven't. I've seen his mail <joeyh> if ya gotta do it, ya gotta do it, but it will of course cause a certian amount of d-i pain <dilinger> he's trying to decide whether he should revert the patch in -1, and make a -2 <dilinger> well, at this point... <dilinger> a) we've already broken the ABI. to revert it will break the ABI again, and <dilinger> b) if it's a large hassle for d-i to switch kernel package names, is it really worth reverting? i assume d-i will want to use the kernel w/ security patches <dilinger> we'll probably have to do the same for 2.6, of course <joeyh> oh, so you're talking about us just continuing in with the broken abi <dilinger> yes, if we think that's the better solution. at this point, i don't know <joeyh> it seems to me that either approach will probably end up breaking rc2 at some point. <joeyh> not changing the soname seems more likely to me to break it though <dilinger> ok <joeyh> if the package name changes, we have to update rootskel and the initrds, iirc that should be all <dilinger> so you're a fan of bumping the SONAME and reverting for -1, then <joeyh> hmm, let me think about it some more <joeyh> if we bump the soname, the kernel udebs package names will also change <dilinger> ok. i'm going to quote this and post to the (d-k) list, just follow up w/ what you decide. horms and i talked about it on irc last night, it would be good to get a discussion on the list
