On 19. mai 2014, at 15:27, Moritz Muehlenhoff <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Mon, May 19, 2014 at 08:52:04AM +0200, Jan Ingvoldstad wrote: >> On 16. mai 2014, at 22:07, Matt Palmer <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On the other hand, I do like the idea of providing alternate kernels, >>> although I wonder if the regular backported kernel isn't enough for people? >> >> No, they're not, because there isn't security support as we understand it in >> the stable branch. >> >> See for instance the recent kernel vulnerability fix; it's not yet there in >> backports. > > No, that's different: > backports.debian.org rebuilds the latest Linux kernel in Debian > testing, i.e. 3.14.4-1 My apologies for not disambiguating between squeeze-backports and wheezy-backports. The current version in squeeze-backports is 3.2.54-2~bpo60+1, and as far as I can tell, it hasn't been touched since March. > > What is being proposed here is to provide a backport of the latest kernel > in Debian stable, i.e. 3.2.57-3+deb7u1. The security update for stable is > available for a week now. Yup. Given that there is at least some work having been done on squeeze-backports, I think some care should be taken not to perform double work here. I think that backporting the latest Debian wheezy kernel to squeeze-lts makes sense, though. I must admit that I've been banging my head quite a lot when attempting to build a new/patched Linux kernel as a drop-in upgrade of the system's current version, so I suspect that a lot of admins out there would appreciate it. -- Cheers, Jan -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [email protected] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [email protected] Archive: https://lists.debian.org/[email protected]
