On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 10:54 -0600, Steve Conklin wrote: > On Mon, 2010-12-06 at 08:19 -0800, Brad Figg wrote: > > On 12/05/2010 11:28 AM, Kees Cook wrote: > > > Hi, > > > > > > On Sun, Dec 05, 2010 at 12:17:56PM +0100, Martin Pitt wrote: > > >> This is an issue for non-kernel SRUs, as they might be built against > > >> libraries in -proposed with new symbols which aren't yet available in > > >> -updates. As the kernel doesn't have runtime dependencies, this case > > >> can't happen. The only corner case that I can see for this is if we > > >> have a new toolchain bit in -proposed (like gcc or libtool) which > > > > > > I disagree here -- the ABI-tracking packages may include things outside > > > the > > > kernel too. I'm significantly more comfortable with doing the builds where > > > they cannot possibly hit an -updates vs -security skew problem. > > > > > > Additionally, this gives the kernel team and QA significantly higher > > > autonomy and an ability to not block on archive admins when starting the > > > testing cycle. > > > > > >> isn't verified yet, so that the new kernel gets built with that. This > > >> happens very seldomly, though, and I don't think it's an important > > >> enough case to warrant making the normal kernel review process a lot > > >> harder? > > > > > > I maybe do not understand what these tools are, but I thought the kernel > > > was reviewed from -proposed before being promoted to -updates? If that's > > > the case, than this change doesn't affect that since when the kernel is > > > ready it would be copied into -proposed already. > > > > > > -Kees > > > > > > > Adding Kate to the distribution list. > > > > Brad > > I'd like for all of us to understand the concerns that each other has, > and make sure that we're following the right processes. Also, we have > certification and regression testing resources to be scheduled for > these kernels, and the sooner we can let them know what our schedule is, > the more easily they can manage their tasks. > > Can we schedule a meeting as soon as possible on mumble and/or IRC, or > even a conference call to discuss this? I think that it would help us to > use a higher bandwidth channel than email to get this resolved.
+1 Kate -- technical-board mailing list [email protected] https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/technical-board
