On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 03:35:47PM +0200, Josip Rodin wrote: > On Sun, May 27, 2007 at 02:34:19PM +0200, Frans Pop wrote: > > > It seems to me that Frans may have been referring to whether it's > > > relevant to add other stuff into sarge's *debian-installer*. > > > > No, I wasn't, or at least not primarily. As we have to update the > > installer anyway because of the kernel ABI change in the security update, > > including these changes as well is trivial and I doubt they will have any > > real impact on the installer. > > > > My concern is more general. Sarge is oldstable, which means really > > low-level maintenance, normally limited to security updates. Introducing > > functional changes in the kernel at this point which could potentially > > lead to regressions for some users just seems like something we should be > > very careful about. > > All right, then the matter can be reduced to simply continuing to follow > the good old 'stable' update policy for 'oldstable', too. If those bug fixes > were critical enough to be added to sarge when it was stable, add them; > if they weren't (and it does seem likely that they weren't if they were > sat on for so long), reject them.
I do believe these issues were critical enough to have been added when sarge was stable - in fact, I'd prepared source for stable in the past with a subset of these fixes but never uploaded anything because I never got an explicit approval from the rest of the SRM team. In retrospect, I should've simply uploaded. Since there have been no objections so far, I'll proceed with uploading these fixes to oldstable where they can be later rejected if objections arise. -- dann frazier -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
